I AD HOC JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
on
1 AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR CORRECTIONAL
SERVICE OFFICERS
I
Final Report
1995
I Ad Hoc Joint Legislative Committee on Affordable Housing For
Correctional Service Officers
I FINAL REPORT
1 Committee Members:
Representative Smith, Co- chairman
Representative Hart
I Representative Brown
Senator Noland, Co- chairman
Senator Chesley
Senator Arzberger
December 3 1, 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
I. Executive Summary... .................................................................................. 1
11. Overview of Action and Recornendation of
Committee ............................................................... 2
111. APPENDIX
A. Minutes of Proceedings
B. Department of Corrections Housing Needs Survey
C. Cities' response to survey
SECTION I:
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Ad Hoc Joint Legislative Committee on Affordable Housing for Correctional Service
Officers was established by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the
Senate as an appointed committee to receive testimony and make recommendations to the
Legislature regarding affordable housing construction for correctional service officers ( CSOs).
Membership consisted of three Senators and three members of the House of Representatives.
The committee met on October 19, November 30, December 21,1995 and January 3, 1996 to
consider several issues, including:
+ availability of affordable housing for prison employees; + prison communities need for affordable housing; + cost of development; and + best method( s) to take to begin development.
Aside from assessing the need for affordable housing in prison communities, the
Committee also met to determine how many correctional service officers ( CSOs) would consider
relocating to rural prison complexes if affordable housing was available. A survey conducted by
the Department of Corrections ( DOC) indicated that many would be willing to relocate if
housing was made available. The Committee tried to determine what housing resources already
exist in communities with prisons ( Buckeye, Douglas, Florence, Safford, Winslow and Yuma).
The six cities varied in the need for development, with Winslow having the greatest need and
Yuma expressing very little need.
The Committee recommended draft legislation be developed to provide for city
participation in at least two affordable housing projects that would include single- family and
multi- family housing, provide preference for CSOs, phase repayment of subsidies into a
revolving fund and appropriate $ 1,000,000 to the Department of Commerce to establish the fund.
SECTION 11:
Overview of Committee Action
Overview of Committee Action
October 19,1995
The Joint Legislative Committee on Affordable Housing for Correctional Service
Officers ( CSOs) met for the first time on October 19 ( see appendix A). At this meeting, the
Committee asked the Department of Corrections to survey selected cities in order to determine
CSO housing preferences and needs. The committee also emphasized the importance of
determining how many CSOs would buy affordable housing if it was developed and determining
what housing resources already exist in communities where state prisons are located.
John Lopach, Housing Programs Manager, AZ Department of Commerce explained that
barriers to housing development in prison communities include lack of consistent local
government and follow- through, inability to obtain private financing, and high land and
infrastructure costs. Mr. Lopach also discussed tools to attract private developers into the rural
areas such as tax abatement for affordable housing development and state equity funds to attract
private financing. Using carefully chosen inmate labor was also suggested as a way to cut cost of
development.
November 30,1995
The committee met for the second time on November 30 ( see appendix A) to hear from
six cities with prisons near their communities regarding housing in their areas. John C. F. Geib,
Interim Town Manager of Florence and Delbert Self, Town Manager of Buckeye provided
information and charts regarding the availability and affordability of housing.
The primary results of the Department of Corrections Housing Needs Survey ( see
Appendix B) were presented:
• the Department's officers demonstrated a clear need for means of reducing their monthly
housing cost;
• over half indicated that the availability of affordable housing would serve as an incentive
for them to relocate to an area near a rural prison complex;
• should affordable housing be made available, the majority of those surveyed would prefer
purchasing a home versus renting.
The committee concluded at this meeting that there is both a need and an interest among CSOs
and staff to relocate if affordable housing is made available in areas near rural prisons.
December 21,1995
The committee met for the third time on December 21 ( see appendix A) to discuss
options to resolve the affordable housing problem and to review the cities responses to the
legislative option they preferred ( see appendix C). The option most often selected was to
increase the State Housing Trust Fund. The committee also discussed what methods could be
used as an incentive to developers. Appropriating money, a state income tax credit and
providing up- front money to be paid back over time or at a good interest rate were all considered
as options.
January 3,1996
The final meeting of the committee took place on January 3, 1996, to review all
recommendations to resolve the affordable housing problem and choose one option. An income
tax credit for single- family development was ruled out because it would not be worthwhile given
the current low market interest rates. The Department of Commerce recommended an
appropriation to provide assistance to buyers and builders. With regard to the buyer, assistance
could be given in the form of down payments and closing costs, reducing the cost of mortgage
interest rates or reducing the mortgage amount. With regard to the builder, assistance could be
given by competitively soliciting private sector development interest and proposals from within
the affected market through the Request for Proposal process.
The committee recommended that draft legislation be developed to provide for city
participation in at least two affordable housing projects for single- family and multi- family
projects, provide preference for CSOs, require repayment of subsidies into a revolving fund and
appropriate $ 1,000,000 to the Department of Commerce, Housing and Infrastructure
Development to establish the fund.
h4 1 : .; d d e CiiiEF CLERK'S OFFICE
/ C - d L/- ZC
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
AD HOC JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS
Minutes of the Meeting
Thursday, October 19, 1995
3: 30 p. m., Senate Hearing Room 2
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Noland, Co- chairman Representative Hart
Representative Smith, Co- chairman Representative Brown
Senator Chesley
Senator Arzberger
STAFF
Joni Hoffman, Senate Research Analyst
Teri Grier, House Research Analyst
Jason Bezozo, Senate Assistant Research Analyst
Co- chairman Smith convened the meeting at 3: 30 p. m. and the attendance was noted.
( See attached sheet for other attendees.) He emphasized the importance of determining
how many Correctional Service Officers ( CSOs) would buy affordable housing if it is
developed, determining what housing resources already exist in prison communities and
what jobs are available for spouses of CSOs in prison communities. Committee members
introduced themselves and expressed their concerns regarding the issue before them.
Senators Arzberger and Chesley indicated they had met with Mr. Frank Martinez and
considered his ideas very worthwhile. They suggested the Committee hear Mr. Martinez's
ideas at a future meeting.
In so far as Hal Carden, Department of Corrections ( DOC), is brand new to his position
and had outdated information from a 1989 DOC report to relate to the Committee, the Co-chairmen
suggested DOC prepare more specific identification of types of housing needs
by site and update information on the current availability of housing in prison communities.
Senator Noland asked that Mr. Frank Martinez be directed to meet with Representative
Smith and her to discuss his ideas and emphasized it is important to know what the
housing needs are of all prison employees, not just CSOs. Senator Noland commented
that one of the top priorities in the 1989 report was appointing a Housing Coordinator,
however, it was acknowledged this has yet to be done.
Scott Smith, Legislative Liaison, DOC, explained he has requested that reports from
prisons on CSO turnover be downloaded in order to compute accurate figures.
October 19,1995
Page 2
JOINT COMMITTEE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS
Senator Chesley emphasized the Committee is not interested in turnover unless it is a
result of inadequate availability of affordable housing.
Senator Noland suggested that the housing problem is more connected to hiring than to
turnover, as that is the reason some people do not accept employment in prison
communities. She requested that DOC provide information on this aspect of the issue.
Representative Smith emphasized the leadership at institutions is a major impact on
turnover rates. He requested that DOC identify whether or not CSOs would live in
affordable housing if it was built, and asked that DOC supply information on price ranges
of housing, types of housing- be it apartments or single- family houses, number of
bedrooms, etc. that would fill the need.
Senator Arzberger commented that it has been observed that once CSOs receive their
training they move to jobs which provide higher pay.
John Lopach, Housing Programs Manager, AZ Department of Commerce, reviewed
a memo from Steve Capobres, who was unable to attend the meeting, and submitted it for
the record ( filed with original minutes). Mr. Lopach explained a number of barriers to
housing development listed in the memo. He identified lack of consistent local government
and follow- through; inability to obtain private financing, construction financing in particular;
uncertain market due to one- industry economy ( prisons); area income too low to support
fair market rents; subsidized rent levels too low to support affordable projects; lack of
private builder interest; lack of spousal employment and recreational opportunities and high
land and infrastructure costs. He emphasized that despite the barriers, the Department
of Commerce has pursued, and continues to pursue, opportunities for new development
in rural prison communities.
Mr. Lopach explained it takes a lot of effort on the part of local leaders to get consensus
in the community to see that the housing will be built and especially to offer incentives to
the housing developer, for instance, by agreeing to build sewers and water works. He
further explained that when low incomes are coupled with low allowable rents and high
building costs because of the distance from urban centers, then additional subsidy is
required. Besides the low- income housing tax- credit, he identified such sources as
Housing Trust Fund money, or perhaps another federal source.
Mr. Lopach summarized recommendations listed in the memo, which notes access to
public funding will be more difficult to obtain with federal budget cuts, and lists tools to
attract private developers: tax abatement for affordable housing development; state equity
funds to attract private financing; depositing state general funds in banks willing to lend for
affordable housing development ( linked deposits); local fee waivers and assistance with
JOINT COMMllTEE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS
October 19,1995
Page 3
infrastructure costs; allow and appropriate funding for DOC to build housing and use state
land for affordable housing development.
In response to Senator Chesley's comment that builders should be able to make money
developing these communities, Mr. Lopach indicated builders report that land is difficult to
find in these areas.
Senator Arzberger asked if financing for builders which the Department of Commerce
steers to these areas is not available.
Mr. Lopach acknowledged this has been a problem, but expressed hope things are
changing. He noted that in the last round of the low- income housing tax credit competition
held in May, 1995, most of the winners were rural builders and all had commitments for
construction and permanent financing. He explained these winners were in Flagstaff,
Page, Sierra Vista and Bullhead City.
Senator Arzberger asked Mr. Lopach to suggests tools or incentives the Legislature could
provide to encourage financing these developments in rural areas.
Mr. Lopach indicated the incentive should be as flexible as possible so it can be fit into
whatever the needs of the project are. He noted the Housing Trust Fund has worked very
well and is an ideal incentive. He explained it is a flexible grant which is subordinate to
bank lending and also looks like equity, lowering the amount of the permanent mortgage
on the property, therefore lowering the debt service and payable with lower rents. Mr.
Lopach indicated $ 600,000 of Housing Trust Fund and federal home loans were used for
a 48- unit apartment project in Winslow. Additionally, he noted assistance in down payment
and closing costs is typically offered through the Housing Trust Fund and provides a good
incentive.
Senator Arzberger asked whether the state issuing Arizona tax- free bonds could enhance
financing for projects.
Mr. Lopach noted tax- free bonds are rationed by the federal government, but
acknowledged the more Arizona could issue, the lower the cost would be for the first- time
homebuyer or the ultimate mortgage that is held by the developer.
Senator Arzberger suggested Mr. Frank Martinez could discuss his ideas with the
Department of Commerce as well and Mr. Lopach indicated he would be happy to work
with him.
October 19,1995 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Page 4 FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS I
Senator Noland asked if the creation of a subfund in the Housing Trust Fund, set up for
those builders developing apartments and manufactured housing in areas where prisons
are located, would enhance development.
I
Mr. Lopach agreed the Department of Commerce could administer such a fund and match
it with federal HOME money and it make investments more attractive for private
8
developers. I
Senator Noland suggested that inmate labor, paid at $ 50 per hour as opposed to $ 10.00
per hour for skilled labor, could give a builder a $ 9.50 an hour savings in labor costs. 8
Mr. Lopach responded that this avenue would initially frighten developers, but suggested
building a demonstration house as an example. Mr. Lopach suggested the inmates could
be chosen very carefully and incentivized to make it very attractive to do a very good job.
He raised the concern that the trades would bring opposition. I
Senator Noland noted that the trades very much want apprentice programs and qualified
workers, both in short supply. She commented that inmates are currently working for cities
and businesses in places like Yuma and Safford and they are a great asset for the
Representative Smith commented that a prison he viewed built by inmate labor was better
quality than one built privately, acknowledging there are some very well- qualified inmate
laborers. I
Delbert Self, Buckeye Town Manager, presented information on housing availability
within the Buckeye town limits and the Buckeye " strip" area. He explained Northwood Park
is a development of single- family houses on 314 to I acre lots, ranging from the low
$ 90,000'~ to an excess of $ 100,000, being built in two phases, which will total 168 lots, 43
of which are currently built. He commented this may not be considered " affordable," but
noted this has not been defined.
I
Mr. Self further explained in the Brookridge subdivision, 6,714 units are planned for single- I
family, multifamily, low density, schools and open areas. He explained a builder has not
yet taken over the program, but noted approximately 1,123 multi- family units will be
available in the $ 70,000 to $ 80,000 range. I
Mr. Self additionally noted in the town of Buckeye the Camelot rents apartments in the
$ 350 to $ 450 range, the Villa, which is Section 8 housing, rents 8 3- bedroom and 8 4-
bedroom apartments for 30 percent of income. He noted the Sierra Verde is also Section
8 housing and farm- home housing combined, with 12 I- bedroom and 28 2- bedroom
apartments renting for 60 percent of income.
1
I
JOINT COMMlll'EE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS
October 19,1995
Page 5
In response to Senator Arzberger's question, Mr. Self reported there is almost no
apartment vacancy at the present time.
Mr. Self indicated he would prepare a booklet detailing the information he presented today
for distribution to the Committee members. He related information about a plan to develop
64 residential lots, with 1,200 to 1,800 square- foot houses in the town proper, for $ 70,000
to $ 85,000. Additionally he noted there is a plan to develop a second phase of the
Shepard Estates and another 160 acres to be developed west of Melrose and north of
Baseline, within the Buckeye town limits. Mr. Self indicated the Valley View newspaper
reported a new development, Sun Valley Ranch, consisting of 120 lots for manufactured
homes, under way on Johnson Road just north of Interstate 10 at approximately 250th
Avenue. He noted the advertisement lists prices beginning at $ 69,900 or $ 419.00 per
month.
Senator Noland asked that Mr. Self report back to the Committee on some of the tools that
the Buckeye City Council feels the Legislature could provide to help meet housing needs.
She commented that a manufactured subdivision in the $ 40,000 to $ 50,000 range and
additional rental housing is closer to " affordable" than one- acre lots with houses. She also
asked for an inventory of available housing as an aid to planning, reiterating the
requirement that cities participate actively.
As regards spousal employment, Mr. Self related that the Palo Verde Nuclear Plant
employs approximately 2,800 people, 14 percent of whom are female; Wal Mart distribution
center employs 250 people, 25 percent of whom are female; a manufacturer of mobile
homes employs 21 5 people, 15 percent of whom are female; the Beam Corporation, a cut-and-
sew- operation, employs 500 people, almost all of whom are female, and the school
system could potentially hire spouses.
Michael Ortega, City Manager, City of Douglas, explained Douglas was a " company
town" when Phelps Dodge mined there and since its departure the prison has taken up
some of the void. He noted there is a current housing shortage and prices are escalating.
Mr. Ortega indicated the $ 50,000 to $ 60,000 range of housing exists, but it is very rare,
commenting there are plenty in the $ 17,000 to $ 20,000 and $ 180,000 to $ 250,000 ranges.
Consequently, he explained prison employees choose to live in Benson and Wilcox,
commuting long distances.
Mr. Ortega indicated he is working with developers in an effort to encourage them to come
to Douglas, also to make improvements, such as expanding the golf course. He explained
a master plan is being developed and he is seeking support in developing the necessary
infrastructure for growth. Mr. Ortega acknowledged the City's partnership with the prison,
noting inmate labor recently built a recycling center in Douglas.
October 19,1995
Page 6
JOINT COMMITTEE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS
Senator Noland requested that Mr. Ortega report to the Committee on specific housing
needs and what types of incentives or tools the Legislature could provide that would be
helpful. She also asked for a list of projects being undertaken with inmate labor and how
they are coordinated.
Mr. Ortega responded that one of the major deterrents to purchasing housing is the down-payment,
even when there is a regular stream of income. He suggested an incentive
program centered on this would be helpful.
Senator Noland suggested providing a " fast- trackn for zoning, platting etc., to keep costs
down for developers.
In response to Representative Smith's inquiry as to when DOC could report current
information, Scott Smith indicated DOC plans to send a survey to prison employees and
could report when responses are compiled, suggesting it would take one month.
Representative Smith suggested it needs to take less time. and announced the next
meeting would be scheduled when it is learned how quickly that information could be
compiled.
Without objection, the meeting was adjourned at 5: 00 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
Alice Kloppel,
Committee Secretary
( Tapes on file in the Office of the Senate Secretary)
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
Minutes of
Ad Hoc Joint Legislative
Committee on
Affordable Housing for
Correctional Service Officers
Date: Thursday, November 30, 1995
Time: 10: OO p. m.
Place: House Hearing Room 1
Representative Smith called the meeting to order at 10: lO a. m. and the following
attendance was noted.
Members Present:
Senator Gus Arzberger Representative Jack Brown
Senator Larry Chesley Representative Joe Hart
Senator Patricia A. Noland, Cochair Representative Tom Smith, Cochair
Members Absent:
None
Staff:
Jason Bezozo - Senate
Teri Grier - House
Martin Harrison - House
Joni Hoffman - Senate
Kathi Knox - House
Scott Smith, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Department of Corrections ( DOC),
reviewed the results of the Department of Corrections Housing Needs Survey ( filed with
original minutes). The summarized results of the survey are as follows:
1. The Department's Officers demonstrated a clear need for means of reducing
their monthly housing and transportation expenses.
' 2. 50.6% of Officers reported owning or purchasing their own home, and 47.0%
reported living in a rental property.
Minutes of Ad Hoc Joint Legislative
Committee on Affordable Housing
for Correctional Service Officers
November 30,1995
Page 2
3. 61.9% of Officers indicated that the availability of affordable housing would serve
as an incentive for them to relocate to a rural prison complex.
4. Among those surveyed, the majority ( 62.0%) indicated that, should affordable
housing be made available, and were they to take advantage of it, they would be
more interested in purchasing a home than in renting.
5. As for perceptions1opinions regarding rural prison communities, Officers
responded as follows:
Not enough accommodations, conveniences or cultural1
recreational activities in a rural prison community 47.1%
Prefer simplified lifestyle in rural communities 46.1%
Good place to raise a family 43.1 %
My spouse or another family member would be unable
to find a job or would have difficulty finding work 35.8%
Schools are better in rural communities 28.3%
Schools are better in larger cities 13.7%
6. Concerning possible incentives to relocate to a rural prison community, Officers
responded as follows:
Extra pay for living in a rural area
A promotion
Affordable and adequate housing
Better storeslshopping in or near the rural community
Inexpensive and convenient transportation
Would not move from where I live now
7. Regarding which rural prisons they might be willing to relocate to, the largest
numbers of Officers indicated an interest in relocating to the Florence and Eyman
complexes.
8. Although a higher percentage indicated an interest in relocating to ASPC-Florence
than to ASPC- Safford, nonetheless, Safford was the most frequent
cityltownlrural area selected for possible relocation.
Minutes. of Ad Hoc Joint Legislative
Committee on Affordable Housing
for Correctional Service Officers
November 30,1995
Page 3
Mr. Smith concluded there is both the need and interest among Correctional Service
Officers ( CSO) and staff for relocating to affordable housing made available in areas
near rural prisons in the Department of Corrections.
Senator Noland expressed concern regarding housing affordability and housing
availability in the areas the report outlined. Mr. Smith responded that information
pertaining to housing affordability and housing availability was not included in the
report, but the information will be provided at a later date.
Senator Arzberger asked if the reason why a large percentage of Officers want to move
to Florence or Eyman is for better wages. Mr. Smith said no specific conclusion was
drawn by the questions and answers provided in the survey as to why the Officers want
to move to Florence or Eyman. Mr. Smith said the reason could be that because
Florence and Eyman are the main complexes within the prison system, the Officers
may desire to work in the central area where special programs are offered.
Mr. Smith concluded there is both the need and the interest among Correctional Service
Officers and staff for relocating to affordable housing made available in areas near rural
prisons in the DOC.
Salvador F. Canchola, Housing Operations Director, PPEP Microbusiness and
Housing Development Corporation, reviewed the Arizona Rural Housing Delivery
Systems ( filed with original minutes).
Steve Capobres, Director of Housing, Department of Commerce, reviewed
Alternatives for Legislative Action ( filed with original minutes). Although many
alternatives were discussed, the following are the top four alternatives recommended
by Mr. Capobres.
1) State Income Tax Credits
State income tax credits could be granted to new affordable housing projects that
are built in the prison cities. These credits could be taken by the owners of the
projects or sold for cash to other Arizona businesses who could benefit from the
tax credit. This concept is similar to the federal Low- Income Housing Tax Credit
program which provides the same incentive toward federal income taxes.
Minutes of Ad Hoc Joint Legislative
Committee on Affordable Housing
for Correctional Service Officers
November 30,1995
Page 4
* Federal income tax credits are available annually to developers willing to
build or rehabilitate residential multi- family apartment projects and make
them affordable. To date, almost $ 29 million in tax credits has been
allocated, assisting in the creation of approximately 7,800 units of housing.
These projects have leveraged nearly $ 366 million into Arizona's
construction industry. Over 50 percent of the projects are in rural areas.
* This program provides a dollar- for- dollar credit against federal income tax
liability for ownerldevelopers of qualifying residential rental projects. The
credit is intended to produce a cash subsidy to aid in the construction of
affordable housing. In return, the developer agrees to restrict rents for a
minimum of 30 years. Over $ 5 million is available every year. Since this
credit can be taken for 10 years, the program generates $ 50 million in total
availability per year. Since most developers sell this credit for 50 cents on
the dollar, $ 25 million in subsidy can be generated per year from the
program for apartment construction. The program currently receives
requests for over four times the amount available.
2) State Equity Fund
One of the biggest barriers to the development of affordable housing is the
inability to raise private investment or financing. This proposal involves the
creation of an independent non- profit entity ( Housing Arizona) devoted to raising
equity investment. This non- profit organization would be highly skilled in multi-family
development and would only do deals in conjunction with other non- profit
organizations.
It would not supplant existing non- profit organizations, only enhance their ability
by lending expertise they lack. Instead of working to make all non- profits
developers ( costly), focus the expertise in one place that could partner with
others. Additionally, since this organization would have credible staff, it would
be able to attract private investment and financing. By raising investment funds
( equity), a pool could be created large enough to facilitate the financing of
smaller rural deals.
Minutes of Ad Hoc Joint Legislative
Committee on Affordable Housing
for Correctional Service Officers
November 30,1995
Page 5
Start- up funds would be necessary to begin to raise the private capital to begin.
Once the pool is created, the organization would be self- sufficient.
3) Increase State Housina Trust Fund
The Trust Fund is currently funded by 35% of all unclaimed property. This is
about $ 3 million a year. These resources are used for existing affordable
housing programs, largely leveraging other federal and private sources of funding
( up to 10 times). There is a current strain on the Trust Fund since many
organizations rely on its resources.
An increase in the percentage could be proposed and targeted toward projects
in the prison cities, similar to the Economic Demonstration District Program a few
years ago in Florence.
4) General Fund A~ propriations
Probably the easiest way to help the prison housing problem is to appropriate
enough general funds to be used toward the construction of housing in the prison
cities. It could take two forms:
1. Direct appropriations to the Department of Corrections to allow them to
build and operate housing themselves.
2. Use the appropriations as a guarantee to leverage other private financing
toward privately constructed and operated housing in the prison cities.
The resources could be offered to both private and non- profit developers
who could put together the best and most cost effective developments.
Senator Noland commented that by providing low income and moderate income
housing with incentives to Correctional Service Officers, property will become available
for people to rent or buy. The effect of the whole housing market in an area should be
taken into consideration. Senator Noland agreed with Number 2 under General Fund
Appropriations.
Minutes of Ad Hoc Joint Legislative
Committee on Affordable Housing
for Correctional Service Officers
November 30,1995
Page 6
John C. F. Geib, Interim Town Manager, Town of Florence, provided information
and charts regarding the availability of existing housing in Florence, Arizona ( filed with
original minutes).
Delbert Self, Town Manager, Town of Buckeye, provided information and charts
regarding the availability and affordability of housing in Buckeye Valley ( filed with
original minutes).
Senator Noland suggested providing the city council members of other small Arizona
cities with a copy of the suggested incentive program for Correctional Service Officers
prepared by Mr. Capobres, asking the city council members for a response.
Representative Smith agreed.
The meeting adjourned at 11: 30 a. m.
Respectfully submitted,
Karman Cobb
Committee Secretary
( Attachments and tapes on file in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate.)
CHIFr SI- EPTS OFFICE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE JAN 0 5 1996
AD HOC JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS
Minutes of the Meeting
Thursday, December 21, 1995
11 : 00 a. m., Senate Hearing Room 3
Members Present
Senator Noland, Co- chairman
Representative Smith, Co- chairman
Senator Chesley
Members Absent
Senator Arzberger
Representative Hart
Representative Brown
Staff
Joni Hoffman, Senate
Teri Grier, House
Kathi Knox, House
Co- chairman Noland convened the meeting at 11: I0 a. m. She explained the Committee
would discuss informational items until a quorum was present to adopt recommendations.
Joni Hoffman, Senate Research Analyst, referred to a previously- distributed packet of
responses from cities to legislative options put forth at the previous meeting ( filed with
original minutes). She additionally distributed an " Overview of Preferred Alternatives,"
( filed with original minutes) ranking the cities' choices of legislative options and explained
each city's preference.
Ms. Hoffman indicated Buckeye chose targeting current state resources and general fund
appropriations, commenting that it is now actively utilizing resources under State
programs. She also noted Buckeye approved of general fund appropriations to allow
quicker development of affordable housing and to cut through red tape. Ms Hoffman
indicated it also supports the continuation of tax- exempt status of housing bonds,
especially a personal income tax credit for first- time homebuyers.
Ms. Hoffman explained Yuma chose targeting current state resources, a state equity fund
and increasing the State Housing Trust Fund, but indicated Yuma asserts it does not have
an affordable housing problem. She suggested that a close look reveals it may have a
problem, noting it currently participates in housing programs offered under state programs.
Senator Chesley commented that when he was last in Yuma, housing which he guessed
was priced at $ 65,000 to $ 95,000 was being built everywhere. He suggested Yuma was
the least needful of the cities under discussion.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS
December 21,1995
Page 2
Senator Noland agreed and additionally acknowledged the large quantity of mobile home
parks in Yuma provides a range of housing availability. She also noted the military base
there tends to create more housing options.
I
Ms. Hoffman indicated Douglas acknowledges it does have a housing shortage. She
explained a group of homes priced at $ 70,000 will soon be available, but the $ 10,000
I
down payment may pose a problem for employees with a $ 24,000 annual income.
Ms. Hoffman explained housing availability is the biggest problem in Winslow, relating that
even if more expensive homes were built, this would free- up more affordable housing. I
Ms. Hoffman explained Safford feels there is ample supply of state land that is currently
not being utilized and affordable housing could provide the " highest and best use of the
land," to comply with constitutional provisions. She related Safford approves of state
linked deposit program, because it keeps financing in the private sector and increasing the
I
State Housing Trust Fund because it is already functioning. Ms. Hoffman indicated Safford
liked general fund appropriations least, because it feared the funding would be subject to I
legislative whims, but generally approves of legislative involvement in the area of
affordable housing.
Ms. Hoffman explained that Florence recently annexed 200 acres to target for housing
development and indicated there is also privately- owned undeveloped land there. Ms.
Hoffman indicated the price of this land is high and infrastructure would be expensive to
develop as well, emphasizing Florence definitely has a housing problem I
In response to Senator Chesley's question, Senator Noland explained utilizing state- linked
deposits involves ranking lenders who are competing for the investment of state general
funds, in part based on their track record in making resources available for affordable b
housing.
Senator Noland noted that the option most often selected was to Increase the State I
Housing Trust Fund.
In response to Senator Noland's inquiry regarding which options the Department of I
Corrections ( DOC) would most like to coordinate efforts on, Scott Smith, Legislative
Liaison, DOC, did not offer specific suggestions, but indicated DOC would support
whatever option was chosen.
Senator Chesley commented that to increase the State Housing Trust Fund means general
fund monies must be taken from other budgets, creating conflicts with other intended
I
recipients. He suggested this may not be the most practical choice. I
December 21,1995
Page 3
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES OFFICERS
Senator Noland noted it may be possible to include a $ 1 million or $ 2 million appropriation
for affordable housing in coordination with prison expansion efforts, sharing costs with the
city where expansion takes place. She asked Steve Capobres, Department of
Commerce, where such an incentive may work best.
Mr. Capobres suggested cities are better- equipped to deal with infrastructure
development, recommending the state provide funding for actual on- site construction. He
explained the cities under discussion are already being targeted for existing housing
programs.
Mr. Capobres recommended appropriating money which can be offered to developers,
encouraging the cities to leverage some of that money for infrastructure and awarding a
project to the developer with the best proposal.
Representative Smith asked if the State currently offers a tax credit as an incentive to
developers.
Ms. Capobres indicated currently a federal income tax program is used to build new
apartments and rehabilitate older ones. He explained this program will sunset in 1997, so
cities under discussion will be targeted during 1996. Mr. Capobres indicated the idea
behind the state income tax credit was to replace the federal program when it dissolved.
He explained tax credits are sold for cash to build projects.
Representative Smith asked if the tax credit program amounts to $ 7 million. Mr. Capobres
indicated it amounts to approximately $ 5 million a year, but can be multiplied over a ten-year
period, amounting to $ 50 million available annually. He further explained this is sold
. for 50 cents on the dollar, raising $ 25 million in construction resources.
Representative Smith asked if a significant improvement in affordable housing availability
for Correctional Service Officers ( CSO) could be realized with a $ 5 million tax credit.
Mr. Capobres confirmed a state income tax credit would be a useful incentive to
developers. He commented that one advantage is, it is forgone tax revenue and not
necessarily an appropriation. Mr. Capobres projected the $ 5 million could produce 1,500
units of housing.
In response to Representative Smith's question, Mr. Capobres suggested that depending
upon each separate market, he feels there would be developers interested in building
affordable housing in the cities under discussion, if a $ 5 million state income tax credit was
allocated. He explained that the federal income standard is set pretty low, making it
difficult to entice developers to such markets. Mr. Capobres suggested negotiating levels
of income for a state income tax credit to give developers enough incentive.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS
December 21,1995
Page 4
Senator Noland expressed her concern that different levels of housing should be built to
provide for different levels of employees, not only multi- housing. She asked if the federal
program develops mainly multi- housing.
Mr. Capobres acknowledged most federal developments are multi- housing, emphasizing
this is the reason all options to promote home ownership need to be explored.
Senator Noland offered suggestions such as: providing up- front money which could be
paid back over time or at a good interest rate after sale and looking at prison legislation
for an opportunity to attach a state tax credit that could be legislatively imposed and
coordinated through Department of Commerce.
Senator Noland asked that Mr. Capobres work with Scott Smith and the Director of DOC
to look at what could be done at a new prison site and prison expansion sites. Senator
Noland directed them to develop some recommendations on how a program should be
funded to provide necessary levels of housing, suggesting it could be part of a DOC
budget request as it builds a new prison or expands an existing one.
There being no quorum present, Senator Noland indicated recommendations would wait
until more Committee members were present and announced another meeting will be held
January 3, 1996 at 3: 00 p. m. to hear recommendations.
In response to Senator Chesley's questions about tax credits, it was clarified that the
federal tax credit is for rental properties only. In response to Senator Chesley's inquiry
about a state tax credit program, Mr. Capobres acknowledged the Legislature can write
the law differently for Arizona.
Representative Smith commented that Florence should be highly considered, noting it has
the highest turnover rate of CSOs.
Senator Chesley agreed all the cities under discussion need to be considered,
emphasizing Winslow is the one in dire straits. He noted that at least Florence CSOs can
reside in Mesa, Phoenix or even Tucson, but Winslow has no similar surroundings.
Senator Noland and he agreed Douglas is similar to Winslow in this regard. Senator
Noland acknowledged Winslow has always been in dire straits since the prison was built.
Mr. Capobres indicated he would develop an example choosing Douglas first and possibly
Florence, as directed by the Committee, and was encouraged by members to be creative
in considering other reasonable options not already mentioned.
December 21,1995
Page 5
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES OFFICERS
Senator Noland observed this could serve as a beginning for coordination between DOC
and the Department of Commerce to better address the issue of affordable housing in
prison communities.
Representative Smith suggested contacting the City Manager of Buckeye, who has
developed well- organized housing efforts. Mr. Capobres indicated he would be seeing him
after today's meeting.
Without objection, the meeting was adjourned at 11: 50 a. m.
Respectfully submitted,
Alice Kloppel,
Committee Secretary
( Tape and attachments filed with original minutes in the Office of the Senate Secretary)
RECEIVED
CHIEF CLERK'? OFFICE
AD HOC JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON JAN 0 5 1996
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS
Minutes of the Meeting
Wednesday, January 3, 1995
3: 00 p. m., House Hearing Room 4
Members Present
Senator Arzberger
Representative Brown
Senator Chesley
Representative Hart
Senator Noland, Co- chairman
Representative Smith, Co- chairman
Staff
Joni Hoffman, Senate Analyst
Kathi Knox, House Analyst
Teri Grier, House Analyst
Co- chairman Smith convened the meeting at 3: 50 p. m. and the attendance was noted.
Steve Capobres, Department of Commerce, Housing and Infrastructure
Development, distributed copies of an " Analysis on the use of State Funds with State
Income Tax Credits," ( filed with original minutes) and reviewed considerations and
recommendations presented in it. He suggested income tax credits for single- family
development would not be worthwhile, given the current low market interest rates, the 8
percent maximum Arizona income tax rate which could be given and the question of
whether it is legal to target income tax credits for a specific group of buyers.
Mr. Capobres recommended an appropriation could be mandated to provide assistance
to buyers and builders. With regard to the buyer, assistance could be given in the form
of down payments and closing costs, reducing the cost of mortgage interest rate or
reducing the mortgage amount ( i. e. from $ 70,000 to $ 60,000).
Senator Chesley commented that even if a buy- down is provided, most buyers still do not
have the down payment or closing costs. Mr. Capobres acknowledged this is the main
problem.
Representative Smith asked whether a down payment would be a gift or would be repaid
at some time.
Mr. Capobres indicated that usually a deed restriction is placed on the property, requiring
the repayment of the grant upon sale of the house. He noted this provides encouragement
for the tenants to stay in the home and not profit from selling it.
With regard to assisting the builder, Mr. Capobres recommended competitively soliciting
private sector development interest and proposals from within the affected market through
the Request for Proposal process. He further suggested providing assistance in interest
COMMITTEE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS
Page 2
January 3,1996
write- downs or loan guarantees; site assembly and acquisition support; infrastructure
development and selected pre- development expenditures, such as legal, engineering and
permitting fees.
Senator Noland asked if an up- front allotment for development expenditures or a cost-sharing
by the cities involved would be possible in this type of program. She suggested
these incentives could be paid back at the point of sale of the project.
Mr. Capobres acknowledged the idea is possible, reiterating that income tax credits are
not being recommended for single- family development, rather an appropriation which can
be used for pre- development expenses. He explained the major problem in financing
development is the interim, or pre- development, costs and recommended putting an
appropriation toward these.
Mr. Capobres next addressed multi- family development, reviewing specific financing
examples on pages three, four and five of the handout. Mr. Capobres explained the
financing schemes in the handout are based upon a development cost of $ 55,000 for a 40-
unit multi- family dwelling, with a maximum rent of $ 425 for a 1 - bedroom unit and $ 650 for
a 2- bedroom unit.
Representative Brown and Representative Smith discussed the current starting salary for
Correctional Service Officers ( CSO), agreeing it is $ 20,500. Mr. Capobres explained his
figures address salary levels beginning at $ 18,000 and ranging to $ 30,000.
Representative Smith emphasized it is important to establish what percentage of CSOs
were receiving what salary, suggesting the majority were making the starting salary of
$ 20,500. Representative Brown suggested there was a spread within the range.
Mr. Capobres further discussed income, expenses, acquisition and costs of the projected
multi- family dwelling, noting it would cost $ 2.3 million to develop such a project. He
explained there is an $ 800,000 gap between the cost of development and the $ 1.5 million
maximum mortgage that a bank would allow based on the salary range being discussed.
Mr. Capobres suggested filling this gap with a combination of tax credits and
appropriations to make the project feasible. He also recommended competitively soliciting
private sector development interest and proposals from within the affected market area
and mirroring the federal tax credit program.
Mr. Capobres suggested a tax credit could be used for everything associated with
construction costs and the appropriations could be used for everything the tax credit does
not cover including: land, marketing, permanent loan fees, title recording fees,
development fees above cap and some legal fees.
Page 3
January 3,1996
COMMITTEE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS
Senator Noland suggested devising a revolving fund as a mechanism to recoup
appropriations upon the sale of projects to finance ongoing projects. Mr. Capobres agreed
this is important and can be structured in.
Senator Noland asked if there are such stipulations currently in place and Mr. Capobres
explained existing programs have some form of deed restriction stipulating requirements
e. g., to pay back over time, maintain affordability, etc.
Senator Chesley emphasized that builders have not developed properties where there is
no incentive.
Representative Smith suggested that targeted cities participate in providing incentives as
any development would enhance revenues there.
Senator Noland suggested the best opportunity for a pilot project of this type in both
single- family and multi- family developments would be in Buckeye. Additionally she
suggested another project in Safford or Douglas where there is an existing problem.
Senator Noland also suggested part of the new prison appropriation be used for housing
projects in conjunction with city incentives.
Representative Brown indicated Winslow has participated with such incentives and a multi-family
dwelling was constructed. However, he noted Winslow still had not been able to
attract any developers without some up- front financial assistance. He related that housing
is available in Springerville and St. Johns and that turnover among CSOs is very low. He
agreed that incentives should be developed in cities with existing problems to attract
developers.
Mr. Capobres explained the Department of Commerce was involved in the Winslow
project, providing $ 600,000 to a nonprofit developer of the multi- family dwelling. He
ind~ cateda memo was dispatched nationwide to attract developers to build in W~ nslow, b ut
it received no response from for- profit builders. Mr. Capobres additionally commented that
Winslow did not contribute a great deal; that the land was sold at face value with no
discount.
Mr. Capobres suggested creating incentives for local government, identifying cities
needlng an appropriation and making the money available to whichever city will work with
a developer to formulate the best project. He indicated once built, this project could be
repeated.
Representative Smith acknowledged this is an excellent idea. He suggested writing a
communication to the cities under consideration relating the idea and asking them to
COMMITTEE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS
Page 4
January 3,1996
respond with their input for a development plan, then choosing the most reasonable plan
submitted.
Senator Arzberger questioned whether the suggestion would be a fair solution, as all the
cities have a need, but some have a greater tax base and more resources to offer than
others. Senator Arzberger asserted the State will need to provide up- front assistance but
agreed the cities should provide whatever aid they can, suggesting multi- family housing
would be the best option. He suggested affordable single- family housing is already
available.
Senator Chesley suggested there needs to be some conviction demonstrated by the cities
and that those most willing to provide incentives should be considered first.
Senator Noland suggested putting together legislation to appropriate $ 1 million to the
Department of Commerce to be used for at least two participating grants for single- family
and multi- family developments, which would be put out for any city to apply for and
awarded to whichever city can provide the best match of its own resources. She further
suggested this be set up as a revolving fund, that conditions for repayment be stipulated,
based upon what input the city provides and how much money it is asking for. Senator
Noland explained this may or may not include Buckeye; that housing may be included in
ground- up prison costs there.
In response to Representative Smith's inquiry, Mr. Capobres confirmed that his office could
proceed with such a plan if the appropriation was made. There was general agreement
that the money, based on very different areas of expertise, should be appropriated to the
Department of Commerce and not the Department of Corrections.
Representative Smith suggested that housing not be restricted only to CSOs, that
vacancies could also be offered to similarly quaiifled families in the general public.
Senator Noland suggested providing a CSO preference like veterans are provided, setting
aside a certain percentage of the project for them and opening further vacancies to the
whole community. She requested that Mr. Capobres provide guidance on wording for draft
legislation and incorporate the program into others already existing.
Senator Arzberger opined preference could be given to CSOs and asked that repayment
of incentive and maintaining affordability be stipulated. He specifically mentioned
stipulating a restriction against raising the rent to price the targeted population out of the
market.
Mr. Capobres indicated these mechanisms are currently included in legal documentation
as a matter of course, phasing repayment depending upon how much subsidy is provided,
Page 5
January 3,1996
COMMITTEE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS
how long the project must remain affordable and regulating rents. He did not recommend
stipulations be placed perpetually, but building in a cutoff into the future.
Senator Noland moved that draft legislation be developed which
encompasses city participation in at least two affordable housing
projects to include single- family and multi- family projects, provides
preference for CSOs, phases repayment of subsidies into a revolving
fund and appropriates $ 1 million to the Department of Commerce,
Housing and Infrastructure Development to establish the fund.
The motion CARRIED by a voice vote.
Senator Noland asked that the draft be developed by Mr. Capobres working with
Legislative Council and that it be delivered to her and Representative Smith for review and
dissemination to other Committee members. Mr. Capobres agreed to work with Legislative
Council on the draft language.
Without objection, the meeting was adjourned at 4: 35 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
. .
Alice Kloppel,
Committee Secretary
( Tape and attachment on file in the Office of the Senate Secretary)
Department of Corrections
Housing Needs Survey
Division of Human Resources/ Development
EEDS SURVEY
SAMUEL A. LEWIS
Director
SHARON C. MAYES
Assistant Director
Jo MCDANIEL
Administrator, Planning Bureau
November, 1995
CSO HOUSING NEEDS SURVEY
CSO HOUSING NEEDS SURVEY
Task Force Participants
Jo McDaniel
Administrator, Planning Bureau
Ann 0. Roblyer
Special Projects Manager, Planning Bureau
Russ Savage
Operations Officer
Division of Adult Institutions
Scott Smith
Legislative Liaison
Daryl R. Fischer
Research Manager, Planning Bureau
Data Analvsis Provided Bv:
Andy Thaker
Research Analyst, Planning Bureau
Humberto Cisneros
Research Analyst, Planning Bureau
CONTENTS
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.
Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
List of Tables
Table 1 : Complex Where Presently Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 2: Current CSO Series Position Filled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Table 3: County of Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 4: CityTTownJRural Area of Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 5: Driving Distances to Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 6: Number of People Residing with You . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 7: Total Household Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 8: Current Housing Arrangement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 9: Range of Current Home Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 10: Range of Current Monthly Rent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 1 1 : Affordable Housing an Incentive to Relocate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 12: Affordable Housing an lncentive by Current
Prison Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 13: Affordable Housing an lncentive by Current
CSO Series Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 14: Affordable Housing Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 1 5: Affordable Housing Bedrooms Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 16: Affordable Housing Mortgage/ Rent Willing to Pay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 17: Perceptions/ Opinions of Rural Prison Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 18: Incentives to Relocate to Rural Prison Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 19: Prison Complexes Might Consider Relocating To . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 20: Cities/ Towns/ Rural Areas Might Consider
Relocating To . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Department of Corrections conducted a survey of staff members in the Correctional
Service Officer ( CSO) series to determine their housing needs, and specifically how many
would be interested in relocating to rural prisons should affordable housing be made
available in those areas. CSO- series staff include Cadets, CSO Irs, CSO Ills, Sergeants,
Lieutenants, Captains and Majors, who will be referred to hereafter as " Officers " A total
of 3,249 or 65.9% of 4,927 Officers responded to the survey, and from this population
a systematic random sample of 91 5 surveys was selected for analysis purposes.
The results of the survey may be summarized as follows:
The Deeartment's Officers demonstrate a clear need for means of reducing
their monthly housina and trans~ ortation exeenses. Overall, 30.3% of
Officers live at least 40 miles from work, and as many as 1 in 16 live at least
70 miles from work. Almost one- half ( 49.7%) have at least three people
living with them, and more than 2 in 5 ( 40.8%) have total annual household
incomes of under $ 25,000.
o 50.6% of Officers reeorted ownina or ~ urchasintqh eir own home, and 47.0%
re~ ortedli vina in a rental Droeertv. The most typical home value was in the
range $ 50,000-$ 74,999, and the most typical monthly rent in the range
$ 300.00-$ 449.99. However, 31.5% of the home owners reported a home
value of under $ 50,000, while 23.0% of the renters reported a monthly rent
of under $ 300.
61.9% of Officers indicated that the availabilitv of affordable housina would
Serve as an incentive for them to relocate to a rural ~ r i s o nc omelex. This
equates to 3,050 officers Department- wide. The percentage stating that
affordable housing would serve as an incentive was highest for Officers
currently employed at rural prison complexes, including prison sites at Ft.
Grant ( 85.1 %), Yuma ( 81.2%), Safford ( 70.2%), Winslow ( 69.0%), and
Douglas ( 67.8%). The least interest was expressed by Officers currently
employed at complexes in Tucson ( 47.1 %) and Phoenix ( 47.0%). Officers
employed at the Eyman ( 58.5%), Florence ( 57.8%), and Perryville ( 56.7%)
complexes indicated a moderate interest. However, the lowest percentage
indicating an interest in relocating was still significant at 47.0% ( Phoenix
complex). Furthermore, CSO Its indicated somewhat more interest in
relocating ( 66.4%) than did the higher- salaried CSO 11' s ( 57.2%).
Amona those surveved, the maioritv ( 62.0%) indicated that. should affordable
housina be made available, and were thev to take advantaae of it, thev would
be more interested in ~ urchasina a iome than in rentinq. Most ( 76.2%)
indicated that they would require at least three bedrooms to relocate. More
than two- thirds ( 68.2%) indicated that they would not be willing to pay more
than $ 450 a month in rent or mortgage payment. The survey results indicate
that, on average, Officers would desire to relocate only if they could achieve
an actual reduction in their monthly mortgagetrental payment.
As for ~ erce~ tions/ o~ iniorenasa rdina rural ~ risonc ommunities. Officers
res~ ondeda s follows:
Not enough accommodations, conveniences or cultural/
recreational activities in a rural prison community . . . . . . . . 47.1 %
Prefer simplified lifestyle in rural communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.1 %
Good place to raise a family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.1 %
My spouse or another family member would be unable
to find a job or would have difficulty finding work . . . . . . . 35.8%
Schools are better in rural communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.3%
Schools are better in larger cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.7%
a Concernina ~ ossiblei ncentives to relocate to a rural ~ risonc ommunitv,
Officers res~ ondeda s follows:
Extra pay for living in a rural area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.8%
A promotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.4%
Affordable and adequate housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.5%
Better stores/ shopping in or near the rural community . . . . . . . . . 31.3%
Inexpensive and convenient transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.9%
Would not move from where I live now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.5%
Reqardina which rural ~ risonsth ev miaht be willina to relocate to, the lar~ est
numbers of Officers indicated an interest in relocatina to the Florence and
Evman com~ lexes. The percentages for specific institutions are as follows:
ASPC- Florence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.5 %
ASPC- Eyman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.8%
ASPC- Winslow- Apache ( Springerville) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.1 %
ASPC- Safford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.9%
ASPC- Buckeye ( Proposed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.7%
ASPC- Winslow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.7%
ASPC- Douglas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.0%
ASP- Ft. Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.2%
ASPC- Phoenix- Globe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.6%
ASPC- Perryville- Yuma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3%
Guriouslv. althouqh a hiclher ~ ercentaaein dicated an interest in relocatina to
ASPC- Florence than to ASPC- Safford, nonetheless Safford was the most
freauent citv/ townlrural area selected for ~ ossiblere location:
Safford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.3%
Florence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 - 1%
SpringervilletEagar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.0%
Yuma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.8%
Apache'Junction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.4%
Buckeye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.8%
~ a s a~ r a n d e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 5.7%
Globe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 5.7%
Ft. Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 5.3%
Winslow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 4.8%
Show Low . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.1 %
Coolidge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 2.5%
Avondaleflolleson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3%
Douglas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.0%
Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Florence) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. O%
Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Buckeye- Proposed) . . . . . . . . . . 10.9%
Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Winslow- Apache) . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6%
Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 0.3%
Sierra Vista . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 .9%
St. Johns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 .6%
Willcox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 .2%
Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Eyman) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7%
The overriding conclusion of the sunfey is that there is both the need and the interest
among CSO series staff for relocating to affordable housing made available in areas near
rural prisons in the Department of Corrections.
INTRODUCTION
In late October 1995, the Department of Corrections received a request from the Ad Hoc
Joint Legislative Committee on Affordable Housing for Correctional Service Officers to
conduct a survey of CSOs to ascertain their housing needs. Specifically, the Committee
expressed an interest in determining how many CSOs would consider relocating to rural
prison complexes should affordable housing be made available in those areas. Given
significant interest among CSO's, there may be the possibility that the state could offer
incentives to encourage developers to build affordable housing for CSOs in rural areas.
In response to the request, a task force was formed in the Department of Corrections to
coordinate the survey. The task force was given the responsibility of drawing up the
survey, selecting a target sample, administering the survey, and providing a report on the
results by mid- November 1995. Subsequently, a survey form was developed which
addressed a range of CSO housing issues.
As a result of a meeting of the task force, it was decided that all CSO series positions
would be surveyed ( not just CSOs) and that all institutions would be represented.
Subsequently, a meeting was held with institutional staff to acquaint them with the survey.
Staff were briefed concerning 1) the reasons for the survey, 2) the importance of the
survey, 3) the rationale for including staff from urban prisons, 4) the requirements of
individual items from the survey, and 5) any questions or concerns on the part of staff.
The institutional staff in attendance were then requested to provide survey forms to all CSO
series staff in their respective institutions, to monitor completion, and to ensure that
responses were as complete as possible. Finally, they were asked to forward the surveys
by express mail by 5: 00 p. m. November 3, 1995, or to hand deliver them to Central Office
by the close of business November 6, 1995. All institutions were able to comply within
the established timeframes.
Approximately 3,250 surveys were returned, with a few incomplete or completed by
employees other than CSO series staff. These latter surveys were deleted from the study.
Some questionnaires are still coming in as of the date of this writing, and these surveys
have not been included in the database for this report. Tentatively, it appears that
approximately two- thirds of available CSO series staff responded to the survey.
Because of time constraints and limited staff resources, it was necessary to draw a sample
from the completed questionnaires. A sample totalling 91 5 was selected, which represents
19% of the 4,927 CSO series staff on regular duty, permanently filling an authorized and
budgeted position and including staff on temporary leave ( annual, sick, jury duty, etc.) as
of November 7, 1995. The sampling was done randomly within complexes, with
approximately one in five surveys selected for the sample. However, surveys were not
selected randomly across complexes, as a minimum of 50 surveys per complex was
established in order to ensure reliable results for individual complexes.
The 3- page survey is reproduced on the pages following.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING QUESTIONNAIRE
November 1995
The Ad Hoc Joint Legislative Committee on Affordable Housing for Correctional Service Officers has requested ADC to
complete a survey of CSOs to determine housing needs. In particular, they want to know if low- cost, or reduced- cost housing
would draw CSO- series staff to prisons in rural communities. This survey requires a commitment from institutional staff to
provide as complete a sampling of staff as possible in the short time frames allowed. The items require you to either write your
answer in the space provided or to place a check mark by your answer. Director Lewis and the members of the Committee
appreciate your cooperation with this project.
1. Specify the complex and unit where you presently work: ASPC: Unit.
2. Where do you currently reside ( town, city, rural county):
3. If you have worked at other ADC prisons in the past, please indicate where:
ASPC: Unit
ASPC: Unit
4. What is your current position?
Cadet CSO I CSO II Sergeant Lieutenant Captain Major
5. How many people reside with you now'!
None ( live alone)
1 - 2
3 - 5
C3 Over 5 ( specify how many -.)
6. What is your current household income from all sources'!
$ 19,000 to $ 24,999
$ 25,000 to $ 49,999
$ 50,000 to $ 69,999
$ 70,000 to $ 99,999
G $ 100,000 or over ( Specify amount: $ .)
7. How far do you currently reside from your work site?
Up to 4.9 miles
5 to 9.9 miles
10 to 19.9 miles
20 to 29.9 miles
30 miles or more ( specify how many miles .)
8. Do you own or are you purchasing your home? Yes No.
9. If yes, is your home:
A house? A townhouse?
10. What is the current value of your home?
$ 10,000 to $ 24,999
$ 25.000 to $ 49,000
$ 50.000 to $ 74,999
$ 75,000 to $ 99,999
$ 100.000 or over ( specify value: $ .)
1 1 . Do you rent? Yes No
A mobile home?
12. If yes, do you rent a:
House, Townhouse Apartment Mobile home
13. How much rent do you pay per month? ( Also complete this question if you do not pay for housing.)
0 to $ 149.99 $ 600.00 to $ 749.99
$ 150.00 to $ 299.99 $ 750.00 to $ 899.99
$ 300.00 to $ 449.99 $ 900 00 to $ 1,499.99
$ 450.00 to $ 599.99 $ 1,500 or over
14. Would the availability of affordable housing in or near rural prison communities serve as an incentive for you to move there
to work? Yes. No.
15. If affordable housing were available in or near rural prison communities, would you prefer to:
Purchase a home?
Rent?
16. How many bedrooms do you require for your household?
I? 1 2 3 4 5 or more
17. What is the monthly mortgage or rent you would be willing to pay in order to relocate to a prison in a rural area?
0 to $ 149.99 $ 600.00 to $ 749.99
$ 150.00 to $ 299.99 $ 750.00 to $ 899.99
$ 300.00 to $ 449.99 $ 900 00 to $ 1,499.99
$ 450.00 to $ 599.99 $ 1,500 or over
18. What are your perceptionsiopinions of rural prisons, and the communities where they are housed? ( Check as many as apply
to you.)
Good place to raise a family
My spouse or another household member would be unable to find a job or would have difficulty finding work.
Schools are better in larger cities.
Cl Schools are better in rural communities
I? Prefer simplified lifestyle in rural communities
Not enough accommodat~ ons, c onveniences or culturalirecreational activities in small communities
19. Which of the following incentives would encourage you to move to an area near a rural prison community?
A promotion
Affordable and adequate houslng
Inexpensive and convenient transportation
Extra pay for living in a rural area
Better storc;/ shopping in or near the rural community
Would not move from where I live now
20. If you would like to explain an answer or to elaborate on any of the issues addressed in this survey, please enter your
comments here: I
PLEASE ALSO COMPLETE THE ATTACHED " QLTSTIONS ABOUT LOCATION OF HOUSING." I
QUESTIONS ABOUT LOCATION OF HOUSING
To complete this portion of the survey, assume that affordable housing will be available at each of the
listed prisons, which meets the criteria you specified on your " Affordable Housing Questionraire." Please
place a check mark for each of the rural- area prisons where you would consider working. For each prison
you select, also specify the cities, towns or rural areas where you would not mind living. Maps are
provided on the reverse page for your reference.
1. ASPC - Florence.
Florence
Coolidge
Casa Grande
D Eloy
Apache Junction
nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.)
3. ASPC - Winslow
Winslow
Joseph City
Holbrook
Snowflake
St. Johns
nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.)
5. ASPC - Safford
Safford
Willcox
Ft. Grant
Thatcher
Clifton
Morenci
nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.)
7. ASPC - Yuma
Yuma
Quartsite
Somerton
nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.)
9. ASPC - Apache ( Springerville)
SpringervillelEager
Ci McNary
Show Low
i? St. Johns
Snowflake
0 nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.)
2. ASPC - Eyman
Florence
Coolidge
Casa Grande
Eloy
Apache Junction
nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.)
Ci 4. ASPC - Douglas
Douglas
Bisbee
Sierra Vista
0 Willcox
Tombstone
Huachaca City
nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.)
6. ASPC - Ft. Grant
Ft. Grant
Willcox
Safford
Thatcher
Clifton
Morenci
nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.)
8. ASP - Globe
Globe
Miami
Superior
Claypool
Kearny, Hayden, Winkleman
nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.)
10. ASPC - Buckeye ( proposed)
Buckeye
Gila Bend
AvondaleITolleson
nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.)
SURVEY RESULTS
As noted in the Introduction, all departmental institutions were represented in the survey.
The following tabulation summarizes for each prison complex: 1 ) the number of CSO series
positions filled, 2) the number of completed surveys returned to Central Office, and 3) the
number of surveys represented in the sample selected for analysis:
Table 1: Complex Where presently Employed
* Correctional Officer Training Academy.
** Includes 50 surveys returned and sampled from ASPC- Perryville- Yuma.
ASPC- Douglas
ASPC- Ey man
ASPC- Florence
ASPC- Perryville
ASPC- Phoenix
ASPC- Tucson
ASPC- Winslow
ASPC- Safford
ASP- Fort Grant
COTA +
TOTAL
As indicated, the survey was directed to all CSO series positions, not just CSOs. The
following indicates the number of surveys sampled for each position in the CSO series, as
well as the number for ccldets at the Correctional Officer Training Academy ( COTA) and
other locations:
COMPLEX RETURNED I SAMPLED
Table 2: Current CSO Series Position Filled
POSITIONS
435
979
881
559
236
861
41 7
151
115
266
4,900
213
733
669
375 * *
191
366
280
121
85
166
3,249
61
1 44
164
110**
70
106
6 1
49
50
50
915
% OF TOTAL
5.4%
35.6%
47.0%
7.9%
3.2%
0.7%
0.3%
100.0%
POSITION ( CSO Series)
Cadet
Correctional Service Officer I
Correctional Service Officer II
Sergeant
Lieutenant
Captain
Major
TOTAL
SURVEYS
49
326
430
72
29
6
3
915
While most of the cadets in the survey were physically at the COTA site, a few were at
other locations. In addition, the COTA figures reflect higher- level staff as well as cadets.
The following tables identify the counties, cities, towns, and rural counties where the
Officers reflected in the sample reside. As expected, a disproportionate share of Officers
live in metropolitan areas, in many cases considerably distant from the prisons where they
work.
Table 3: County of Residence
Table 4: CitvKown/ Rural Area of Residence
COUNTY OF RESIDENCE
Apache
Cochise
Coconino
Gila
Graham
Greenlee
Maricopa
Mohave
Navaho
Pima
Pinal
Yuma
TOTAL
11 Mesa
SURVEYS
7
78
7
7
73
2
351
1
47
163
128
51
91 5
CITY/ TOWN/ RURAL AREA
Tucson
Phoenix
% OF TOTAL
0.8%
8.5%
0.8%
0.8%
8.0%
0.2%
38.4%
0.1 %
5.1 %
17.8%
14.0%
5.6%
100.0%
SURVEYS
138
98
Florence
Safford
% OF TOTAL
15.1%
10.7%
Y uma
Winslow
Glendale
Apache Junction
Douglas
Casa Grande
Chandler
55
43
6.0%
4.7%
40
36
27
22
21
19
18
4.4%
3.9%
3.0%
2.4%
2.3%
2.1 %
2.0%
Table 4 ( Continued): City/ Town/ Rural Area of Residence
Of interest is the fact that Maricopa more than doubled Pima 2s a county of residence for
responding Officers ( 351 to 163), and yet the city of Tucson easily exceeded tCle city of
Phoenix as a city of residence ( 138 to 98). Mesa was the other major contributor of
Officers in the valley area besides Phoenix, with 86. The other major cities in the valley
were much further down the list: Glendale ( 271, Chandler ( 1 8), Peoria ( 1 3), Tempe ( 1 2),
Gilbert ( 6), and Scottsdale ( 4). Cities providing disproportionately large numbers of Officers
tended to coincide with c~ tiesh ousing state prisons, as expected: Florence ( 55), Safford
( 43), Yuma ( 40), Winslow ( 36), and Douglas ( 21).
CITY/ TOWN/ RURAL AREA
( Continued)
Coolidge
Sierra Vista
Peoria
Willcox
Fort Grant
Tempe
Bisbee
Avondale
Goodyear
Thatcher
Gilbert
Globe
Superior
Egar
Eloy
Flagstaff
Marana
Pima
Joseph City
Buckeye
Scottsdale
Other Communities
Rural Areas
- TOTAL
Obviously, the factor of driving distance is a major factor in Officers' level of satisfaction
with their present places of employment. In particular, the sample respondents reported
SURVEYS
17
16
13
13
12
12
9
8
8
8
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
47
94
91 5
% OF TOTAL
1.9%
1.7%
1.4%
1.4%
1.3%
1.3%
1 . O%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.7 %
0.7%
0.7% -
0.5 %
0.5%
0.5 %
0.5 %
0.5 %
0.5 %
0.4%
0.4%
5.1 %
10.3%
100.0%
the following driving distances to work:
Table 5: Driving Distances to Work
While almost half of the respondents ( 47.5%) live within 20 miles of work, a significant
proportion ( 30.3%) must drive at least 40 miles to work. Alarminalv. as manv as 1 in 16
~ orrectionaol fficers must drive at least 70 miles to aet to work. In and of itself, this result
is indicative of the need for more and better housing within proximity of state prisons!
DRIVING DISTANCES
0- 4.9 Miles
5- 9.9 Miles
10- 1 9.9 Miles
20- 29.9 Miles
30- 39.9 Miles
40- 49.9 Miles
50- 59.9 Miles
60- 69.9 Miles
70 Miles or More
TOTAL
Because Officers typically receive, at most, moderate salaries, and in many cases have
several dependents to support, anything which can reduce expenses, such as reduced
traveling distances to work and lower- cost housing, would likely provide much needed
assistance.
As indicated by the following table, the survey shows that just 119 or 13.0% of
respondents live alone. In fact, almost half ( 49.7%) have three or more individuals residing
with them, typically a spouse and two or more children.
SURVEYS
90
113
232
126
77
82
79
57
59
91 5
Table 6: Number of Peo~ leR esidina with You
% OF TOTAL
9.8%
12.3%
25.4%
13.8%
8.4%
9.0%
8.6%
6.2%
6.4%
100.0%
- -- - --- -
TOTAL 91 5 1 00 . O O/ o
PEOPLE RESIDING WITH YOU
None - Live Alone
1- 2
3- 5
6 or More
To assist in assessing housing needs, respondents were asked to indicate the range of their
current total household income. The results are as follows:
SURVEYS
119
341
41 3
42
% OF TOTAL
13.0%
37.3%
45.1 %
4.6%
Table 7: Total Household Income
While it is clear that many Officer households have a second source of income, we still find
that over 40% have total incomes of less than $ 25,000, which is another indicator of the
need for affordable housing.
TOTAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME
$ 1 9,000 - $ 24,999
$ 25,000 - $ 49,999
$ 50,000 - $ 69,999
$ 70,000 - $ 99,999
TOTAL
One of the important factors in assessing housing needs concerns the current or desired
type of housing -- home, rental property, or other arrangement. According to the following,
there is almost an even split ( 50.6% to 47.0%) between Officers who own or are
purchasing a home and those who rent.
SURVEYS
373
432
84
26
91 5
Townhouse I 16 I 1.7%
% OF TOTAL
40.8%
47.2%
9.2%
2.8%
100.0%
Table 8: Current Housing Arrangement
HOUSING ARRANGEMENT
House
Townhouse I 31 I 3.4%
Mobile Home
TOTAL OWNIPURCHASING HOME
House
SURVEYS
344
% OF TOTAL
37.6%
103
463
147
Apartment
OTHER ARRANGEMENT I 22 I 2.4%
11.3%
50.6%
16.1%
Mobile Home
TOTAL RENTING
TOTAL I 91 5 I 100.0%
194
Respondents were also asked to indicate the current value of their home:
Table 9: Range of Currefit Home Value
21.3%
58
430
11 CURRENT HOME VALUE I SURVEYS 1 % OF TOTAL / I
6.3%
47.0%
Table 9 ( Continued): Ran- ~ eof Current Home Value
CURRENT HOME VALUE
( Continued) SURVEYS % OF TOTAL
$ 75,000 - $ 99,999 99 21.4%
$ 100,000 - $ 149,999 49 10.6%
$ 150,000 or Over 8 1.7%
11 TOTAL I 463 I 100.0% 11
I One hundred forty- six or 3 1.5 % of the 463 respondents owning or purchasing a home
indicated a home value of under $ 50,000, while just 57 or 12.3% indicated a home value
/ of $ 100,000 or over. The most typical range was $ 50,000-$ 74,999.
For those paying rent, the survey asked for the amount of the monthly payment.
I
I Table 10: Range of Current Monthly Rent
11 MONTHLY RENT I SURVEYS I % OF TOTAL 11
- --
$ 600.00 or Over 59 13.7%
TOTAL 430 100.0%
Ninety- nine or 23.0% of the 430 who rent are paying under $ 300.00 a month, while 59,
or 13.7%, pay $ 600.0 or more a month.
One of the indicators judged to be relevant to the willingness of Officers to relocate is the
proportion who have worked at complexes other than those at which they are presently
employed. The survey results show that almost one- third ( 303 or 33.1%) of the
respondents had indeed worked at another complex at some time in the past. In fact, 99
or 10.8% had worked at two or more other complexes in the past.
An additional telling question on the survey is the following: Would the availability of
affordable housing in or near rural prison communities serve as an incentive for you to
move there to work? The responses are as follows:
Table 11 : Affordable Housing an Incentive to Relocate
AFFORDABLE HOUSING WOULD BE INCENTIVE SURVEYS % OF TOTAL 1' Yes 566 61.9%
TOTAL 91 5 100.0%
Approximately three in five Officers responding to the survey indicated that the availability
of affordable housing would encourage them to relocate to a rural prison to work.
Because the above was considered the most important question on the survey, the results
were broken out according to current work location ( prison) and according to the Officer's
current position with the Department. The following two tables indicate the percentage of
Officers responding that affordable housing would provide an incentive to relocate to a rural
prison.
Table 12: Affordable Housing an Incentive by Current Prison Complex
11 PRISON COMPLEXILOCATION ( AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS AN INCENTIVE!
11 ASP - Ft. Grant
I
1) ASPC - Douglas I 67.8 % I1
ASPC - Safford
ASPC - Winslow
ASPC - Perryville - Yuma
70.2%
69.0%
I( ASPC - Perryville 1 56.7% II
- -
82.0%
81.2%
ASPC - Eyman
ASPC - Florence
I[ ASPC - Tucson 47.1 % II
58.5%
57.8%
[ ASPC - Phoenix 47.0% I1
As might be expected, Officers at the Phoenix and Tucson prisons were the least likely to
indicate that affordable housing would serve as an incentive to relocate to a rural prison.
Officers working at the smaller rural prisons indicated the most willingness to relocate.
Table 13: Affordable Housing an Incentive by Current CSO Series Position
Maior I 66.7%
CSO SERIES POSITION
Cadet
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS AN INCENTIVE
81.6%
As expected, CSO Its were more likely to view affordable housing as an incentive than
were officers in most higher- level positions.
Correctional Service Officer I
Captain
Sergeant
Correctional Service Officer II
Lieutenant
66.4% -
60.0%
57.4%
57.2%
56.0%
An accompanying question concerned the respondent's preference for either renting or
purchasing a home. If affordable housing were available in or near rural communities,
would you prefer to: Purchase a home? Rent?
Table 14: Affordable Housing Preference
11 HOUSING PREFERENCE I SURVEYS I % OF TOTAL 11
11 Purchase a Home I 567 I 62.0% 11
11 Rent I 348 I 38.0% 11
The clear majority of respondents indicated that, should affordable housing be made
available near a rural prison, they would wish to purchase a home there.
TOTAL
To accurately assess housing needs, information on the number of bedrooms required was
requested from the respondents. How many bedrooms do you require for your household?
Table 15: Affordable Housing Bedrooms Required
91 5 100.0% 1
As shown in the table, the vast majority of respondents ( 76.2%) indicated the need for at
least three bedrooms. Less than 1 in 20 respondents indicated the need for just one
bedroom.
BEDROOMS REQUIRED
One
Two
Three
Four
Five or More
TOTAL
The survey went on to question the respondents concerning the monthly payments they
would be willing to make should they relocate to a rural area. What is the monthly
mortgage or rent you would be willing to pay in order to relocate to a prison in a rural area?
Table 16: Affordable Housing MortgageIRent Willing to Pay
SURVEYS
42
176
472
20 1
24
91 5
% OF TOTAL
4.6%
19.2%
51.6%
22.0%
2.6%
100.0%
- - -
MORTGAGEIRENT WILLING TO PAY
$ 0.00 - $ 149.99
SURVEYS
86
% OF TOTAL
9.4%
Table 16 ( Continued): Affordable Housing MortgageIRent Willing to Pay
MORTGAGEIRENT WILLING TO PAY
( Continued) I SURVEYS I % OF TOTAL 11
In comparing the above results with previous findings concerning home values and rental
amounts, it becomes apparent that the respondents would require on average a lower
monthly payment for housing than they are making at the present time in order to relocate.
This is to be expected.
-
$ 600.00 - $ 749.99
$ 750.00 - $ 899.99
$ 900.00 or More
TOTAL
To gain a better understanding of how Officers feel about relocating to a rural prison, the
survey posed the following question. What are yourperceptions/ opinions of ruralprisons,
and the communities where they are housed? The following table indicates the number of
respondents checking each individual item. It should be noted that just because an Officer
did not check an item, it does not mean that helshe disagreed with it.
Table 17: Perce~ tions/ O~ inionosf Rural Prison Communities
-
71
13
4
91 5
7.8%
1.4%
0.4%
100.0%
PERCEPTION/ OPINION
Not enough accommodations, conveniences or
cultural/ receational activities in a r u r ~ l
prison community.
Prefer simplified lifestyle in rural
communities.
Good place to raise a family.
My spouse or another household member would
be unable to find a job or would have
difficulty finding work.
Schools are better in rural communities.
The most frequent perception was the last listed, namely that rural communities do not
provide enough accommodations, conveniences or culturalIrecreationaI activities. Higher
number of respondents also indicated that they preferred the simplified lifestyle in rural
communities and that such places provided a good place to raise a family. A larger number
of respondents indicated that they thought schools were better in rural communities than
in larger cities ( 28.3% to 13.7%), although this did not appear to be a major issue to most
r~ spondents.
SURVEYS
43 1
422
394
Schools are better in larger cities.
TOTAL
% OF TOTAL
47.1 %
46.1 %
43.1 %
328
259 28.3% 1
125
91 5
13.7%
100.0%
Concerning the issue of motivation, the survey posed the following question. Which of the I following incentives would encourage you to move to a rural prison community?
Table 18: Incentives to Relocate to Rural Prison Communitv
INCENTIVES TO RELOCATE
Extra pay for living in a rural area.
A promotion.
Affordable and adequate housing.
Better stores/ shopping in or near the
rural community.
Inexpensive and convenient transportation.
Would not move from where I live now.
As indicated, more than half ( 55.8%) of the respondent ; indicated that extra pay would
serve as an incentive to relocate. Lesser numbers indicated that a promotion ( 48.4%) or
the availability of affordable and adequate housing ( 41.5%) would serve as an incentive to
relocate.
SURVEYS
51 1
443
380
286
TOTAL
To provide more specific information concerning where Officers would be willing to
relocate, the following questions were posed concerning location of housing. TO complete
this portion of the survey, assume that affordable housing will be available at each of the
listed prisons, which meets the criteria you specified on your " Affordable Housing
Questionnaire." Please place a check mark for each of the rural- area prisons where you
would consider working. For each prison you select, also specify the cities, towns or rural
areas where you would not mind living. Maps are provided on the reverse page for your
reference.
% OF TOTAL
55.8%
48.4%
41.5%
31.3%
264
224
The following table itemizes the number and percentage of respondents who indicated an
interest in relocating to any of 10 listed prison sites. ASPC- Phoenix, ASPC- Tucson, and
ASPC- Perryvilie ( except Yuma) were excluded from this portion of the survey.
28.9%
24.5%
91 5 100.0%
Table 19: Prison Complexes Might Consider Relocating To
ASPC - Safford
ASPC - Buckeye ( Proposed)
% OF TOTAL
43.5%
37.8%
31.1 %
MIGHT CONSIDER RELOCATING TO
ASPC - Florence
ASPC - Eyman
ASPC - Winslow - Apache ( Springerville)
ASPC - Douglas
SURVEYS
398
346
285
255
253
27.9%
27.7%
229 25.0% I
The largest numbers of respondents indicated an interest in relocating to either the Florence
( 43.5%) or the Eyman ( 37.8%) complexes. The least numbers of respondents indicated
an interest in relocating to either the Yuma or Globe prisons. Just 120 or 13.1 % of the
respondents indicated no interest whatsoever in relocating to any of the above prison sites.
Table 19 ( Continued): Prison Complexes Might Consider Relocating To
The following table lists the individual cities, towns, and rr al areas to which the largest
numbers of respondents indicated an interest in relocating.
MIGHT CONSIDER RELOCATING TO
( Continued)
ASPC - Ft. Grant
ASPC - Phoenix - Globe
ASPC - Perryville - Yuma
TOTAL
SURVEYS
21 2
198
195
91 5
Table 20: Cities/ Towns/ Rural Areas Might Consider Relocating To
% OF TOTAL
23.2%
21.6%
21.3%
100.0%
CITYTTOWNIRURAL AREA MIGHT RELOCATE TO
Safford
Florence
SpringervilleIEagar
Yuma
Apache Junction
Buckeye
Casa Grande
Globe
Ft. Grant
Winslow
Show Low
i
Coolidge
AvondaleTTolleson
Douglas
Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Florence)
Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Buckeye- Proposed)
Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Winslow- Apache)
SURVEYS
213
193
192
172
150
145
1 44
1 44
1 40
135
120
114
113
% OF TOTAL
23.3 %
21.1 Oh
21 . O%
18.8%
16.4%
15.8%
15.7%
15.7%
15.3%
14.8%
13.1 %
12.5%
12.3% I
131
101
100
97
Snowflake
Sierra Vista
St. Johns
11 . O%
11 . O%
10.9%
10.6%
94
91
88
10.3%
9.9 %
9.6%
Willcox I 84 1 9.2%
Table 20 ( Continued): Cities/ Towns/ Rural Areas Might Consider Relocating To
--
i Thatcher
% OF TOTAL
CITYTTOWNIRURAL AREA MIGHT RELOCATE TO
I ( Continued)
Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Eyman) I 80
SURVEYS
8.7%
Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Winslowl
-
Miami ' Bisbee
McNary I 42 I 4.6%
78
75
Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Douglas)
Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Safford)
Holbrook
Superior
Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASP- Ft. Grant)
Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Phoenix- Globe)
Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Perryville- Yuma)
Gila Bend
Jose~ hC itv
8.5%
8.2%
Tombstone 30 1 3.3%
59
59
58
55
55
53
50
50
6.4%
6.4%
6.3%
6.0%
6.0%
5.8%
5.5%
5.5%
Somerton I 27 1 3.0%
Claypool 29
1 E l o ~
Clifton
Huachuca Citv
3.2%
KearnylHaydenIWinkelman
Quartsite
Morenci
24
22
21
2.6%
2.4%
2.3%
15
14
13
1.6%
1.5%
1.4%
Finally, the respondents were provided with the opportunity to record any comments they
might have with regard to the issues addressed in the survey. Those comments are as
follows:
Number of
Resoonses Trans~ ortation
9 Commuting to rural areas a problem; need to live closer to work or be
compensated.
2 Need bike pathstbus route to work.
1 Travel between towns dangerous in winter.
1 Commuting time too long.
1 Like long commute to unwind.
Schools
4 Schools need to compete with urban schools.
1 Like residential area due to schools.
Child Care
1 Child care needs to be provided.
Medical
2 Adequate, affordable medical care needs to be provided.
3 Need to be near military or regular doctorlhospital.
3 Need better health care/ insurance, including HMO- type medical insurance in
rural area.
PavlFinancial Concerns
20 Low paylfinancial concerns are the issue, not housinglinadequate staff.
1 Low paylinadequate number of staff.
Housina/ Locational Issue
1 Inequity among prisons in regard to rental costs.
7 Prisons in undesirable locations; houses run down; don't like neighbors; lower
standard of living.
2 Housing problems due to overexpansion, building where work force not
available.
1 Already live in rural area.
2 Rural areas are safer and more secure compared to cities.
1 Would purchase home in some locations but rent in others.
4 Housing in this area too expensive.
1 Inexpensive rent only incentive to live in a rural community.
Likes current home/ location.
Would require attractive hometneighborhood to move.
Would not move from urban area to small town.
Home most important factor to family.
Survey does not consider cost of upkeep, other home costs.
Wants help from state in acquiring land near prison ( Ft. Grant).
Need house for family and horses.
Want to be closer to a prison; would like if quality of housing and
neighborhood good.
Transferring to rural prison, but family having to stay in home in urban area.
There is no incentive to move near a prison.
Like rural lifestyle; want to stay in rural area.
Would not live in housing on or near prison grounds; especially if inmates used
as labor; like to get away from work; hard since you can't associate with
inmate families who live near prisons; access to staff too easy.
Like to have staff housing or housing project in rural area.
Don't like staff housing due to rules.
Would like larger place for kids to visit.
Want to transfer to urban area.
Should use inmate labor to build housing for staff.
Retirement
20- year retirement better than other incentives.
Too near retirement to move.
ADC transfer policy restrictive.
Live with parents and don't pay rent.
Health hazards in rural areas, such as crop dusting.
Moving expenses an issue.
Other
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
RESEARCH STAFF
MEMO
Joni L. Hoffman, Senate Legislative Research Analyst
Kathi Knox, House Majority Research Analyst
TO: MEMBERS OF THE AD HOC JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS
DATE: December 18,1995
Re: Responses from Cities
As you know, the Cochairs of this Committee sent a letter to six cities soliciting
their input regarding options put forth at the last Committee meeting by Steve Capobres
from the Department of Commerce ( see attached " Alternatives for Legislative Action").
The cities to which the letters were sent were Winslow, Douglas, Buckeye, Florence,
Safford and Yuma. The letter was mailed December 1 and we asked the cities to
respond by December 15 so that Committee members could review the material prior to
the December 21 meeting. We also enlisted the help of the League of Cities and
Towns staff to follow up with those cities contacted to encourage them to respond in a
timely manner.
Attached is a copy of the letter we sent to the cities and the responses we have
received.
JLH: KK: jcs
Attachments
OVERVIEW OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
BUCKEYE
( G) TARGET CURRENT STATE RESOURCES
( H) GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS
YUMA
( G) TARGET CURRENT STATE RESOURCES
( C) STATE EQUITY FUND
( F) INCREASE STATE HOUSING TRUST FUND
DOUGLAS
( A) STATE LINKED DEPOSIT PROGRAM
( F) INCREASE STATE HOUSING TRUST FUND
( B) & ( C) STATE INCOME TAX CREDITS
STATE EQUITY FUND
( H) GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS
WINSLOW
( A) STATE LINKED DEPOSIT PROGRAM
( B) STATE INCOME TAX CREDITS
( C) STATE EQUITY FUND
( E) STATE LAND
SAFFORD
( E) STATE LAND
( A) STATE LINKED DEPOSIT PROGRAM
( F) INCREASE STATE HOUSING TRUST FUND
( H) GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS
FLORENCE
( B) STATE INCOME TAX CREDITS
( E) STATE LAND
( F) INCREASE STATE HOUSING TRUST FUND
( G) TARGET CURRENT STATE RESOURCES
Town of B u c keye
December 15,1995
Ms. Joni L. Hoffman
Legislative Research Analyst
Arizona State Senate
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Dear Ms. Hoffman:
This is in response to the request from the Legislative Committee on Affordable
Housing for Coriectional Services Officers,
The Town of Buckeye is presently very active in the Home and CDBG programs.
We intend to continue with our utilization of these two programs as long as the
funds a n available.
The use of General Fund Appropriations to use as leverage far private financing
toward privately constmcted and operated housing in the prison cities is something
we would also suppol- t.
We support the continuation of the tax- exempt status of bonds to be used for
housing. It would be especially helpful to see a personal income tax credit for first-time
homebuyers.
Of all of the above, the use of General Fund Appropriations would provide the
ability to move more quickly toward affordable housing development in whatever
area it might be need. e- d. The use of these funds would cut through various levels of red- tape as well.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our thoughts relative to the above
alternatives for legislative action toward providing housing for Correctional Services
0 fiicers.
anager
':" 4c
100 Nonh Apache P. C. E: Y 157 Buckeye, Arizona 85326 ( 602) 386- 4691 FAX ( 602) 386- 7332
J e THE CITY OF DOUGLAS
425 TEIITH STREm, DOUGLAS, ARIZONA 85607 TELEPHONE i52Cj364- 750 7
I FAX / 520) 364- 750 7
d
Michael J. P- E
City Manager
Senator Patricia Noland, Co- Chair
Rqmsentativt Tom Smith, Co- Chair
I Afbdable Houing Committee
Axkmna S t3te Legislature
87a0 West Washington
I Phcnix, Arizona 85007
Re Your letter dated November 30, 1995/ Affordable Housing for Correctional Service -
Omcers
Dcar Senator Nolanc! and
% presentative Smith
IEncbscd, please hxd a brief summary of the four alternatives we believe wcuid assist the
I developers and rht= City of Douglas in providing affordable housing for Correctional Service
CMlicers. The City of Douglas is committed to this endeavor and if you have sny question.
m either the attached information or the previous data fonvarded ur? det separate cover,
pkase feel bee to contact me immediately.
We appreciate the State Legislature's interest in this problem and look forward to a I resolution which will benefit everyone.
n
I City Manager
I oc= Mayor and Council
Greg Lucero, Deputy City Manager
Jarrie Tent, Housing Director
m0: cg
I ~ o~ al- a th; e ymier soathwtstm bnrdtr comrnunft; vl/
W~ thout additional Annexation, there are approximately thirty ( 30) to fifty ( 50) lots of
varying sizes within the corporate limb of the City of Douglas. Land prices appear
to be increasicg. Depending on the size of the lot and its location, the price ranges
from $ 6,000.00 to $ 16,000.00.
The shortage of affcrdable housing in Douglas may sttm from the lack of grouped
developed lots which have the necessary infrastructure available to construct homes
in the $ 55,000.00 to $ 65,000.00 range. A group of local investors is currently
developing land ( water, sewer, curb & gutter, and strest paving) in Douglas. The
houses will be approximately 1,150 Sq. Ft., wood frame with stucco and sell at a
price of $ 89,900.
Families with an annual income of $ 24,000 could handle a $ 59,000 mortgage but
would not have $ 10,900 for a down payment for one of these $ 69,900 homes.
The following altarnatives could serve t~ assist CSO's in the- acquisition of a home:
State Linked De~ osiPt roararq
Preference to lending institutions with a good track record f ~ mra king
resources available to individuals and investors for affordable housing
would be of benefi to the entire community.
Increase State Housinrr Trust Fund 1HTFl
Communities receiving HTF monies use it for construction,
administration, demolition and other project soft ccsts, depending on the
project. The lack of restriction on use and the minimal red tape
connected to the HTF provides flexibility in designing an affordable
housing project. An increase in the availability of HTF monies would
enhance development of both affordable rental housing and t5e
construction of new or rehabilitation of existing vacant houses.
State Incog$ Tax Credits and Stab Eauitv Fund
Once educated private investors and nonprofit organizations in the City
of Douglas area would find both the State Income Tax Credit and State
Housing Equity Fund ideas attractive incentives for developing
affordable rental housing or single family homes for purchase.
Ql General Fund A~~ m~ tiationr
* A general fund appropriation with few restrictions on its use would be
helpful in the City of Douglas to provide leverage to both ncnprofit and
private investors.
A general fund appropriation could also be used for the start up of a
program similar to the State Equity Fund.
r Town of FLORENCE I
December 18, 1995
Senator Patricia Nolmd, Co- Chair
Representative Tom Smith, Co- Chair
Joint Legislative Committee on Affordable Housing
for Correctional Services Officers
Arizona State Lrgislaturc
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix. Arizona 85007
I Honorable Senator Noland and Representative Smith:
I would like to t h e this opportunity to thank you for forwarding the copy of the survey dolls bp
the Deyt. Of Cor- rections concerning the housing needs of employees of the Dzpartmznt. It will
be of great assistanw in our discussions with developers \ ve are aaempting to interest in our
community.
I With regard to the options presented by Steve Capobres, Dept. Of Carninerce. whicl~ m ay be of
assistance in creating affordable housing or in attracting developers to construcr same, 11 is my
belief that the following four alternatives would prove to be of most value in our con~ niullity:
I. 4 State Income Tzx Credits for affordable housing built in " prison citics."
I J IJst. of Stnte Lmd - there is a sizeable inventory of State Land in rht. Florerlcz area
in addit~ onto the State land already designated for prisan use.
I + Increase in the State Housirlg Trust Fund targeted for use in thc " prison Cities."
9' Targeting Current Srate Resources by providing bonus points for projects located
in " prison cities." In addition to the funding resources listed in Mr. Capobres
paper. I nrould add technical assistance from the Dept. Of Commerce staff. Snlall
commwiities. such as Florence, need all the assistancc and expertise available, in
assistins and working uith developers to " package" all the possible resources,
thereby ending up with a truly affordable project.
As far as vacant lPmd available for the development of affordable housing, the Town iiself, does
not oun lat- td that would be suirable for this purpose. We have, howe\- er, just colnpleted annexing
approximately 200 acres which is being targeted for housing devcloprncnt and are currently
box l@$ J, P
h developers wA o qre interested hi 3bu2ild in$ r T2 eT6 d2I ) h& %!%) nlitrrle~ lta nd orence, rlzona -
Affordable Housing
Page 2
is moving ahead, to provide the infrastructure to make this area " ripe" for development and nil1
be working closely with rhc Dept. Of Commerce staff to steer this de\ relopment in the right
direction.
In addition to the annexation area mentioned above, there is undeveloped, privately owned land
outside of thc Town whicll could be utilized for housing development. The biggest obstacles to
developnient of these areas are the asking price for the land itself as well as the cost of extending
utilities to serve it. These two factors alone would almost preclude the development crf
'. affordable" housing unless other " cost savings" factors couid be brought to bear.
I hope this il~ fonnationw ill be of use to the Committee and should there be an). additional
information I can provide, please do riot hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Interim Town Manager
THE CITY O F SAFFORD
December 14, 1995
.- \
' rdir jason K. , Dezozo, Research .4ssistznt
Arizona StateBenate
Capitol Complex, Senate Building
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Dear Mr. Dezozo:
You asked us to provide you with certain information pertaining to statistics related to the City of
SafTord. Specifically, you asked for housing information and information concerning inmate labor.
Several Charts are inclosed that give you the information requested. Please let me know if you have
any questions concerning this information.
Sincerely,
THE CITY OF SAFFORD
M &< - C \ u Ronald J lacobson
/ gl
Enclosures ( 6)
I P. O. BOX 272 SAFFORD, ARIZONA 85548 FAX ( 520) 348- 31 11
BASIC COUNTS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING
Special Census of Graham County, Arizona
Census Date: March 18, 1995
Persons
Total
Housing
Graham County
Pima Town
SaRord City
Thatcher City
Total
9,950
672
3,486
1,328
29,772
1,850
8,773
3,957
Occupied
8,98 1
619
3,179
1,237
Vacant
969
5 3
289
9 1
Rate
9.73
7.89
8.33
6.85
December 14, 1995
Joni L. Hoffman, Legislative Research Analyst l Arizona State Senate
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Dear Ms. Hoffman:
I AfTordable Housing for Correctional Services Officers
I Senator Noland and Representative Smith asked for comments concerning alternatives that might be
considered to address the issue of affordable housing for Correctional Services Officers. Ten
alternatives were submitted and our preference for the four best options as far as our community is
concerned follow.
Please consider the four best options, in order of preference, to be:
1. Alternative E -- State Land
Alternative A -- State Linked Deposit Program.
rUten2tive F -- Increase State Housing Trust Fund
Alternative H -- General Fund Appropriations.
I Making state land available for affordable housing has the potential for providing several benefits.
First, in most rural communities, conversion of state land to affordable housing property would be
the highest and best use of the land and consequently comply with existing. constitutional B requirements Additionally, if this land were sold to developers for this purpose, the land would be
convened to private ownership and thus provide revenue to the rural areas through property taxes
I to assist in infrastructure development
Alternative A keeps the financing for affordable housing in the private sector. It provides incentives
B for financial institutions to make resources available for affordable housing. Developers would then
have incentive to construct the needed housing.
P. O. Box 272 I SAFFORD, ARIZONA 85548 FAX ( 520) 348- 31 11
AKordable Housing
Page 2 of 2
Increasing the percentage of unclaimed property that is transferred to the State Housing Trust Fund
would increase the resources available for additional housing. This fbnd is already fbnctional and
operating so no new organizational structure would be required. I
The least preferable alternative of the four options we recommend is general fbnd appropriations.
This alternative has the disadvantage of being subject to the whims of the Legislature each year. It
has the advantage of having the Legislature as a player in assisting in the providing of affordable
housing to employees of the State. We believe that this alternative should be restricted to using the
. I
appropriations as guarantees to leverage other private financing for the purpose of obtaining
affordable housing in the prison cities. u
There is an ample supply of state land near the City of Saf5ord that is really being used for no obvious
purpose at the present time. Private lands are available within the City that would be available under
the right circumstances and with negotiation with land owners.
I
Please let me know if we can be of fbrther assistance. I
Sincerely,
City Manager / (
. Mayor
James L. Boles
21 Williamson Avenue
Winslow, Arizona 86047
( 602) 289- 2422
Fax: ( 602) 289- 3742
TDD: ( 602) 289- 4982
Council Members
Curtis Hardy Teny Nagle
Dolores Rodriguez
Arnold Scott
Daniel Simmons
T. E. Thompson
December 13,1995
Jason Bezozo
Arizona State Senate
Capitol Complex, Senate Building
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Dear Mr. Bezozo:
In response to your request for infarmation, the City of Winslow would support the following
options:
A) State Linked Deposit Program
B) State Income Tax Credits
C) State Equity Fund
D) State Land
2. Housing Availability:
3 Single Family Homes for sale
1 single Family Home for Rent
2 Mobile Homes for Rent
5 Apartments for Rent ( substandard and depressing)
Housing Costs: ( average monthly costs)
Owner Occupied with Outstanding Mortgage $ 552.
Owner Occupied without Mortgage $ 166.
Renter Occupied $ 331.
General Housing Data:
Total Housing Units = 3,109
Average # of persons per household = 3.36
Units built prior to 1939 = 25%
3. Inmate Labor
Projects include weed and trash removal and irrigation ditch repair.
Approximate value to City annually = $ 32,000.
Approximate cost in broken equipment = $ 5,000.
4. The City of Winslow owns property that would be suitable for affordable housing, and
there is considerable acreage that is undeveloped and zoned for housing held by private
owners.
However, as you can see by the housing costs, affordability is not the concern in Winslow.
Our issue is availability. Even high end housing would improve the situation by Ereeing up
more affordable housing currently being occupied by higher income families. The one
subsidized development that was built in Winslow is a barren, desolate eyesore and we
have no interest in developing anymore of that type housing.
In fact, low housing costs is the reason given by many developers for not wanting to
develop in Wislow. Unfortunately, none of these surveys takes the quality of the housing
into consideration. If we condemned the number of dwelling units that are substandard
and should be condemned, our citizens would be living in the streets. The catch 22 for us
is that the low cost of these units skews the market data to the extent that this is not
perceived as a profitable market.
If you have any questions regarding this information, please feel free to contact me at
( 520) 289- 341 1 ext. 227.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Meyer
~ ommunity~~ evelo~ rMnaennatg er
cc: 6on McDaniel, City Administrator
INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CITY OF YUMA
Tlus information was provided on December 14 by telephone call from Ms. Marty
McCune from the City of Yuma. Ms McCune is the Neighborhood Specialist.
Ms. McCune indicated that Yuma does not have a problem with available affordable
housing. If pressed to choose from the listing of options, Yuma believes that C) State Equity
Fund and F) Increase State Housing Trust Fund are the best options for - Yuma.
YUMA CONSOLIDATED PLAN FOR 1995
CITIZEN'S SUMMARY
Action Plan
CDBG fhds in the amount of $ 1,057,000 are programmed for a variety of housing and community
development activities including expansion of the senior center, renovation of a downtown hotel for
affordable housing, public services, downtown streetscape improvements, downtown plan, and mixed
use comdor study. HOME hnds are not received on an entitlement basis, but must be applied for
through the state. Funds for Tenant Based Rental Assistance have been received for four
years.
Citizen Participation
The City's citizen participation process began with development and adoption of a new Citizen
Participation Plan in January. Also in January, public hearings were held in locations other than City
Hall for the first time. In February, a meeting was held with social service agencies to discuss service
coordination and identi@ gaps. The group has continued to meet on a regular basis to discuss the
service c h a t e in the community. In April, the draft Consolidated Plan was made available for public
review, two public hearings were held, City staff met with the Housing Authority Resident Council
to discuss plan elements, and another meeting was held with social service agencies. May saw
consideration by City Council of proposed CDBG activities, and final adoption of the Plan.
COMMUNITY PROFILE
The City of Yuma, Arizona is located in the far southwest comer of the state on the banks
of the Colorado River. The river forms the border between Arizona and California, and Yuma is also
close to two states in Mexico - Baja California about 10 miles to the west and Sonora about twenty
miles to the south. Yuma has historically been a city to go through on the way to somewhere else --
being half way between Phoenix and San Diego and half way between Los Angeles and Tucson.
Yuma was the lower fording point on the Colorado River and thus every major movement which
contributed to the development of the American west went through Yuma and left its mark on the
history of the area.
The major c~ ntnbutortso the economy of the area are agriculture, tourism and government.
Tourism brings more than 50,000 winter residents from northern states and Canada to Yuma each
year which impacts both services in the community generally and the housing market. The majority
of the winter visitors stay in RV parks outside the City limits, however a number rent apartments each
year making the rental market extremely tight during the winter months. Agriculture also contributes
Yuma consolidated Plan Summary
Page 2
to the tight rental market as lettuce and citrus harvest seasons bring many farmworkers to the area
from September to April.
The total population of the City of Yuma grew from 42,433 in 1980 to 54,923 in 1990 -- a
29% increase in population. The number of households grew even more - by 37% from 14,045 in
1980 tb 19,282 in 1990. The 1995 Special Census showed a population of 60,457, with 24,857
households.
There was a shift in proportions of ethnic and racial groups between 1980 and 1990. The
proportion of whites in the population fell from 67% of total population in 1980 to just over 58% in
1990. Proportions of all minorities rose, with the largest increase being in the proportion of Hispanics
going from 27% in 1980 to 35.6% in 1990.
Yuma County includes a relatively large number of migrant and seasonal farmworkers.
Approximately 2,400 farmworkers work and reside in Yuma County . Assuming an average family
size of 4.5 persons per household, a minimum population of 10,800 persons comprise farmworker
families permanently living within Yuma County. ( This figure would increase to 12,800 to 13,100
when migrant fmworkers permanently residing elsewhere in the State or Southwest U. S. are
factored into the equation.)
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
Conditions
Yuma is experiencing rapid growth, with the metropolitan area being the fourth fastest growing
metropolitan area in the country. The seasonal nature of the economy from both agriculture and
tourism, and stubborn double- digit unemployment, remain issues in providing affordable housing.
There have been a number of major commercial projects in the last several years including Target,
Dillards, Toys R Us, Super K Mart, however most of these businesses provide jobs minimum wages
and seasonal employment. Several new industrial projects are being developed to provide higher
paying year- round jobs.
Housing Needs
The discussion which follows uses the term " housing problems" extensively. " Housing Problems"
are defined as one or more of three items -- a) cost burden - paying more than 30% of income for
rent and utility costs; b) overcrowding, and c) substandard housing conditions. Data was provided
by KUD for households with housing problems.
Yuma Consolidated Plan Summary
Page 3
While 46% of renter households in the City of Yuma have housing problems of some sort, the
percentage jumps to nearly 80% for findies making less than 5 1% of MFI. For all minority headed
households, the chance is even higher with 87% and 81% of those in the income categories of 0- 30%
Median Family Income ( MFI), and 3 1- 50% MFI respectively having housing problems. For black
households the percentage is even higher, with 92% of those in the 0- 30% MFI category having
housing problems, and 100% of those in the 3 1%- 50% category having problems. Hispanics fare
better than blacks, with 86% of those in the 0- 30% MFI category having problems, and only 77% of
those in the 3 1- 50% category having housing problems.
Family type is another way to analyze the extent to which income level affects housing problems, with
78% of renter households below 5 1% of MFI having housing problems. Elderly families are the least
likely to suffer housing problems, and large families ( 5 or more persons) are the most likely to have
problems. All minority households suffer more than the general population from housing problems
when their incomes are less than 5 1% of MFI.
Only 24% of homeowners have housing problems when their incomes are less than 5 1% of MFI.
The percentage jumps to 72% for those with incomes under 30% MFI and 60% for those from 3 1-
50%. For minority owners, 78% of those with less than 30% MFI and 64% of those from 3 1- 50%
MFI have have housing problems. Family size is another indicator, with 100% of large families in
all categories having housing problems.
Housing Market Conditions
In 1990 U. S. Census, Yuma had approximately 10,784 detached housing units, 1,290 one- unit
attached structures, 6,004 multi- fdy units, and 4,611 mobile home, trailers, or other units. Mobile
homes represent a significant portion of the City's housing stock, as approximately 2,000 units are
situated on subdivided urban land, 68 on unsubdivided land, and 2,3 18 units situated in 134 mobile
home parks located throughout the City. There are approximately 5 18 mixed residential dwellings
with the City.
Vacancy rates for housing fluctuate significantly over time and are contingent on dynamic market
conditions. Because of the seasonal nature of Yuma's economy, vacancies are plentihl in the summer
and virtually nonexistent during the winter months.
Housing Affordability
+ For Yuma County, median family income rose by 71% between 1980 and 1990. Monthly
contract rent rose by 79% during the same period, resulting in a 4.8% erosion of rental
affordability. In December, 1994, MFI rose to $ 30,100, a 29% increase from 1990.
+ Homeownership affordability rose 7.6% during the same 10- year period, mdung it easier to
own a home.
Yuma Consolidated Plan Summary
Page 4
+ Only 15% of owner occupied dwellings surveyed were valued under $ 50,000. leading to the
conclusion that gains in affordability have likely benefitted moderate income households the
most.
+ In January, 1995, according to the Norton Report, the median closed price for a home was
$ 62,275, with a 4 bedroom house costing $ 1 15,000 which is well out of . the range of low-moderate
income people.
Housing Condition
About 17% of occupied owner units were substandard according to the 1990 Census, with 13% of
rental units also substandard. Based on information fkom the City of Yuma Housing Assistance Plan
in 1991, approximately 69% of occupied substandard owner and renter units were estimated to be
suitable for rehabilitation, with the balance not economically feasible to repair.
Overcrowding
According to the 1990 Census, 6% of owner- occupied dwellings and 16% of renter- occupied
dwellings were in an overcrowded condition ( more than 1.01 persondroom) in 1990.
Concentrations of Minorig and Low- Income Householdy
Generally speaking, the farther north a census tract is located, the greater the minority and low-income
concentrations. The greatest concentration of minority households - 64% - is located in
Census Tract 1, and the least concentration - 17% in Census Tract 10. The City's North End
Redevelopment Project Area is within Census Tract 1. The City considers any area which exceeds
50% low- income or minority to be an area of concentration and a location for special outreach
efforts.
Affordable Housing Needs
Rental .4ssistar1ce is needed because renters make up 61.5% of very low- income households and
55.3% of other low- income households, and more than 75% pay in excess of 30% of their income
for rent and utilities in the very low income category; Housing Authority waiting lists for rental
assistance and conventional public housing exceed 1,400 on EACH list; renter households with
" worst case" needs number more than 1,100; vacancy rates in existing rental housing are low,
especially in the winter.
New Concnuction can be justified because there is adequate vacant land available for the development
of new rental or owner occupied housing; There are approximately 722 households which have five
or more persons which are very low income or other low income; rental units having three or more
bedrooms are scarce and are generally not affordable to very low or low income renters; there is not
a supply of vacant and habitable public housing in excess of turnover units.
I Yuma Consolidated Plan Summary
Page 5
I Housing Rehabilitation is needed because substandard units make up 17% of the housing stock
which is owner occupied, with 86% of those units considered suitable for rehabilitation; high
unemployment affects an owner's ability to maintain his property and can lead to deterioration or loss
I of buildings. Rehabilitation of rental units is also needed.
Homebuyer Assistance is needed because mortgage fhds are plentill and rates are low, however m low income homebuyers have difficulty coming up with downpayment and closing costs.
Homeless Needs
According to a State- sponsored Yuma County Homeless Survey it is estimated that some 600
I homeless persons are in Yuma during the winter months. There are emergency shelter facilities for
the homeless in Yuma with Crossroads Mission being the largest with the ability to provide 70
emergency shelter beds for males; 40 emergency beds for women and children Unduplicated numbers 8 , showing shelter service use in 1994 were 2,300 individuals and 600 families. Approximately 200
people are turned away annually due to unavailable beds.
Other agencies which provide limited beds for specific user populations include Catholic Community
Services for victims of domestic violence, and Behavioral Health Services for seriously mentally ill
I persons. The Council of Governments operates a motel voucher program to provide limited
emergency assistance, as well as a rent and mortgage program to keep people from becoming
homeless.
I The City of Yuma surveyed the social services agencies regarding the needs of the homeless, and first
priority was given to homeless families. The primary identified need is support facilities and services,
I with rehabilitation of existing housing units coming in next in priority order.. There is reasonable
coordination among the providers of service to attempt to avoid duplication. The City has
participated with CDBG hnding for transitional housing for mentally ill homeless with Behavioral
I Health Services and with Safe House for victims of domestic violence Rental assistance is a
secondary need as the need for housing assistance is great for those who are homeless. The Housing
Authority has six Section 8 certificates desi- g nated for homeless households.
Public and Assisted Housing Needs
The City's Housing Authority manages 185 public housing units with another 50 under construction
on four sites. All units are in excellent condition. The Authority regularly applies for CIAP and
CDBG hnds to repair these units and sites.. I Housing Authority units are well managed, and no improvements are needed in management. There
I are a number of programs ongoing for public housing tenants including drug elimination, Family Self
Sufficiency Program, working to publicize the low- rent program and develop a network of
responsible Section 8 Landlords, and assessment of tenant's needs. Other activities include resident
Yuma Consolidated Plan Summary
Page 6
councils, tenant patrols, participation in the Boys and Girls club, gang awareness meetings, teenager
programs and teen dances.
Other units currently assisted by state or federal funds:
( a) Section 8 Units - 806
New Construction - 110 - Private
Mod Rehab - 9 - Private
Certificates and Vouchers - 687 ( Elderly - 76, Family 61 1) - HACY
( b) All privately- owned rental housing
Section 202 Elderly - 60 units
Low Income Housing Tax Credit - 144 Units
Farmers Home 5 16 - Farmworker Housing - 32 units

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution.

I AD HOC JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
on
1 AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR CORRECTIONAL
SERVICE OFFICERS
I
Final Report
1995
I Ad Hoc Joint Legislative Committee on Affordable Housing For
Correctional Service Officers
I FINAL REPORT
1 Committee Members:
Representative Smith, Co- chairman
Representative Hart
I Representative Brown
Senator Noland, Co- chairman
Senator Chesley
Senator Arzberger
December 3 1, 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
I. Executive Summary... .................................................................................. 1
11. Overview of Action and Recornendation of
Committee ............................................................... 2
111. APPENDIX
A. Minutes of Proceedings
B. Department of Corrections Housing Needs Survey
C. Cities' response to survey
SECTION I:
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Ad Hoc Joint Legislative Committee on Affordable Housing for Correctional Service
Officers was established by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the
Senate as an appointed committee to receive testimony and make recommendations to the
Legislature regarding affordable housing construction for correctional service officers ( CSOs).
Membership consisted of three Senators and three members of the House of Representatives.
The committee met on October 19, November 30, December 21,1995 and January 3, 1996 to
consider several issues, including:
+ availability of affordable housing for prison employees; + prison communities need for affordable housing; + cost of development; and + best method( s) to take to begin development.
Aside from assessing the need for affordable housing in prison communities, the
Committee also met to determine how many correctional service officers ( CSOs) would consider
relocating to rural prison complexes if affordable housing was available. A survey conducted by
the Department of Corrections ( DOC) indicated that many would be willing to relocate if
housing was made available. The Committee tried to determine what housing resources already
exist in communities with prisons ( Buckeye, Douglas, Florence, Safford, Winslow and Yuma).
The six cities varied in the need for development, with Winslow having the greatest need and
Yuma expressing very little need.
The Committee recommended draft legislation be developed to provide for city
participation in at least two affordable housing projects that would include single- family and
multi- family housing, provide preference for CSOs, phase repayment of subsidies into a
revolving fund and appropriate $ 1,000,000 to the Department of Commerce to establish the fund.
SECTION 11:
Overview of Committee Action
Overview of Committee Action
October 19,1995
The Joint Legislative Committee on Affordable Housing for Correctional Service
Officers ( CSOs) met for the first time on October 19 ( see appendix A). At this meeting, the
Committee asked the Department of Corrections to survey selected cities in order to determine
CSO housing preferences and needs. The committee also emphasized the importance of
determining how many CSOs would buy affordable housing if it was developed and determining
what housing resources already exist in communities where state prisons are located.
John Lopach, Housing Programs Manager, AZ Department of Commerce explained that
barriers to housing development in prison communities include lack of consistent local
government and follow- through, inability to obtain private financing, and high land and
infrastructure costs. Mr. Lopach also discussed tools to attract private developers into the rural
areas such as tax abatement for affordable housing development and state equity funds to attract
private financing. Using carefully chosen inmate labor was also suggested as a way to cut cost of
development.
November 30,1995
The committee met for the second time on November 30 ( see appendix A) to hear from
six cities with prisons near their communities regarding housing in their areas. John C. F. Geib,
Interim Town Manager of Florence and Delbert Self, Town Manager of Buckeye provided
information and charts regarding the availability and affordability of housing.
The primary results of the Department of Corrections Housing Needs Survey ( see
Appendix B) were presented:
• the Department's officers demonstrated a clear need for means of reducing their monthly
housing cost;
• over half indicated that the availability of affordable housing would serve as an incentive
for them to relocate to an area near a rural prison complex;
• should affordable housing be made available, the majority of those surveyed would prefer
purchasing a home versus renting.
The committee concluded at this meeting that there is both a need and an interest among CSOs
and staff to relocate if affordable housing is made available in areas near rural prisons.
December 21,1995
The committee met for the third time on December 21 ( see appendix A) to discuss
options to resolve the affordable housing problem and to review the cities responses to the
legislative option they preferred ( see appendix C). The option most often selected was to
increase the State Housing Trust Fund. The committee also discussed what methods could be
used as an incentive to developers. Appropriating money, a state income tax credit and
providing up- front money to be paid back over time or at a good interest rate were all considered
as options.
January 3,1996
The final meeting of the committee took place on January 3, 1996, to review all
recommendations to resolve the affordable housing problem and choose one option. An income
tax credit for single- family development was ruled out because it would not be worthwhile given
the current low market interest rates. The Department of Commerce recommended an
appropriation to provide assistance to buyers and builders. With regard to the buyer, assistance
could be given in the form of down payments and closing costs, reducing the cost of mortgage
interest rates or reducing the mortgage amount. With regard to the builder, assistance could be
given by competitively soliciting private sector development interest and proposals from within
the affected market through the Request for Proposal process.
The committee recommended that draft legislation be developed to provide for city
participation in at least two affordable housing projects for single- family and multi- family
projects, provide preference for CSOs, require repayment of subsidies into a revolving fund and
appropriate $ 1,000,000 to the Department of Commerce, Housing and Infrastructure
Development to establish the fund.
h4 1 : .; d d e CiiiEF CLERK'S OFFICE
/ C - d L/- ZC
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
AD HOC JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS
Minutes of the Meeting
Thursday, October 19, 1995
3: 30 p. m., Senate Hearing Room 2
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Noland, Co- chairman Representative Hart
Representative Smith, Co- chairman Representative Brown
Senator Chesley
Senator Arzberger
STAFF
Joni Hoffman, Senate Research Analyst
Teri Grier, House Research Analyst
Jason Bezozo, Senate Assistant Research Analyst
Co- chairman Smith convened the meeting at 3: 30 p. m. and the attendance was noted.
( See attached sheet for other attendees.) He emphasized the importance of determining
how many Correctional Service Officers ( CSOs) would buy affordable housing if it is
developed, determining what housing resources already exist in prison communities and
what jobs are available for spouses of CSOs in prison communities. Committee members
introduced themselves and expressed their concerns regarding the issue before them.
Senators Arzberger and Chesley indicated they had met with Mr. Frank Martinez and
considered his ideas very worthwhile. They suggested the Committee hear Mr. Martinez's
ideas at a future meeting.
In so far as Hal Carden, Department of Corrections ( DOC), is brand new to his position
and had outdated information from a 1989 DOC report to relate to the Committee, the Co-chairmen
suggested DOC prepare more specific identification of types of housing needs
by site and update information on the current availability of housing in prison communities.
Senator Noland asked that Mr. Frank Martinez be directed to meet with Representative
Smith and her to discuss his ideas and emphasized it is important to know what the
housing needs are of all prison employees, not just CSOs. Senator Noland commented
that one of the top priorities in the 1989 report was appointing a Housing Coordinator,
however, it was acknowledged this has yet to be done.
Scott Smith, Legislative Liaison, DOC, explained he has requested that reports from
prisons on CSO turnover be downloaded in order to compute accurate figures.
October 19,1995
Page 2
JOINT COMMITTEE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS
Senator Chesley emphasized the Committee is not interested in turnover unless it is a
result of inadequate availability of affordable housing.
Senator Noland suggested that the housing problem is more connected to hiring than to
turnover, as that is the reason some people do not accept employment in prison
communities. She requested that DOC provide information on this aspect of the issue.
Representative Smith emphasized the leadership at institutions is a major impact on
turnover rates. He requested that DOC identify whether or not CSOs would live in
affordable housing if it was built, and asked that DOC supply information on price ranges
of housing, types of housing- be it apartments or single- family houses, number of
bedrooms, etc. that would fill the need.
Senator Arzberger commented that it has been observed that once CSOs receive their
training they move to jobs which provide higher pay.
John Lopach, Housing Programs Manager, AZ Department of Commerce, reviewed
a memo from Steve Capobres, who was unable to attend the meeting, and submitted it for
the record ( filed with original minutes). Mr. Lopach explained a number of barriers to
housing development listed in the memo. He identified lack of consistent local government
and follow- through; inability to obtain private financing, construction financing in particular;
uncertain market due to one- industry economy ( prisons); area income too low to support
fair market rents; subsidized rent levels too low to support affordable projects; lack of
private builder interest; lack of spousal employment and recreational opportunities and high
land and infrastructure costs. He emphasized that despite the barriers, the Department
of Commerce has pursued, and continues to pursue, opportunities for new development
in rural prison communities.
Mr. Lopach explained it takes a lot of effort on the part of local leaders to get consensus
in the community to see that the housing will be built and especially to offer incentives to
the housing developer, for instance, by agreeing to build sewers and water works. He
further explained that when low incomes are coupled with low allowable rents and high
building costs because of the distance from urban centers, then additional subsidy is
required. Besides the low- income housing tax- credit, he identified such sources as
Housing Trust Fund money, or perhaps another federal source.
Mr. Lopach summarized recommendations listed in the memo, which notes access to
public funding will be more difficult to obtain with federal budget cuts, and lists tools to
attract private developers: tax abatement for affordable housing development; state equity
funds to attract private financing; depositing state general funds in banks willing to lend for
affordable housing development ( linked deposits); local fee waivers and assistance with
JOINT COMMllTEE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS
October 19,1995
Page 3
infrastructure costs; allow and appropriate funding for DOC to build housing and use state
land for affordable housing development.
In response to Senator Chesley's comment that builders should be able to make money
developing these communities, Mr. Lopach indicated builders report that land is difficult to
find in these areas.
Senator Arzberger asked if financing for builders which the Department of Commerce
steers to these areas is not available.
Mr. Lopach acknowledged this has been a problem, but expressed hope things are
changing. He noted that in the last round of the low- income housing tax credit competition
held in May, 1995, most of the winners were rural builders and all had commitments for
construction and permanent financing. He explained these winners were in Flagstaff,
Page, Sierra Vista and Bullhead City.
Senator Arzberger asked Mr. Lopach to suggests tools or incentives the Legislature could
provide to encourage financing these developments in rural areas.
Mr. Lopach indicated the incentive should be as flexible as possible so it can be fit into
whatever the needs of the project are. He noted the Housing Trust Fund has worked very
well and is an ideal incentive. He explained it is a flexible grant which is subordinate to
bank lending and also looks like equity, lowering the amount of the permanent mortgage
on the property, therefore lowering the debt service and payable with lower rents. Mr.
Lopach indicated $ 600,000 of Housing Trust Fund and federal home loans were used for
a 48- unit apartment project in Winslow. Additionally, he noted assistance in down payment
and closing costs is typically offered through the Housing Trust Fund and provides a good
incentive.
Senator Arzberger asked whether the state issuing Arizona tax- free bonds could enhance
financing for projects.
Mr. Lopach noted tax- free bonds are rationed by the federal government, but
acknowledged the more Arizona could issue, the lower the cost would be for the first- time
homebuyer or the ultimate mortgage that is held by the developer.
Senator Arzberger suggested Mr. Frank Martinez could discuss his ideas with the
Department of Commerce as well and Mr. Lopach indicated he would be happy to work
with him.
October 19,1995 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Page 4 FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS I
Senator Noland asked if the creation of a subfund in the Housing Trust Fund, set up for
those builders developing apartments and manufactured housing in areas where prisons
are located, would enhance development.
I
Mr. Lopach agreed the Department of Commerce could administer such a fund and match
it with federal HOME money and it make investments more attractive for private
8
developers. I
Senator Noland suggested that inmate labor, paid at $ 50 per hour as opposed to $ 10.00
per hour for skilled labor, could give a builder a $ 9.50 an hour savings in labor costs. 8
Mr. Lopach responded that this avenue would initially frighten developers, but suggested
building a demonstration house as an example. Mr. Lopach suggested the inmates could
be chosen very carefully and incentivized to make it very attractive to do a very good job.
He raised the concern that the trades would bring opposition. I
Senator Noland noted that the trades very much want apprentice programs and qualified
workers, both in short supply. She commented that inmates are currently working for cities
and businesses in places like Yuma and Safford and they are a great asset for the
Representative Smith commented that a prison he viewed built by inmate labor was better
quality than one built privately, acknowledging there are some very well- qualified inmate
laborers. I
Delbert Self, Buckeye Town Manager, presented information on housing availability
within the Buckeye town limits and the Buckeye " strip" area. He explained Northwood Park
is a development of single- family houses on 314 to I acre lots, ranging from the low
$ 90,000'~ to an excess of $ 100,000, being built in two phases, which will total 168 lots, 43
of which are currently built. He commented this may not be considered " affordable," but
noted this has not been defined.
I
Mr. Self further explained in the Brookridge subdivision, 6,714 units are planned for single- I
family, multifamily, low density, schools and open areas. He explained a builder has not
yet taken over the program, but noted approximately 1,123 multi- family units will be
available in the $ 70,000 to $ 80,000 range. I
Mr. Self additionally noted in the town of Buckeye the Camelot rents apartments in the
$ 350 to $ 450 range, the Villa, which is Section 8 housing, rents 8 3- bedroom and 8 4-
bedroom apartments for 30 percent of income. He noted the Sierra Verde is also Section
8 housing and farm- home housing combined, with 12 I- bedroom and 28 2- bedroom
apartments renting for 60 percent of income.
1
I
JOINT COMMlll'EE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS
October 19,1995
Page 5
In response to Senator Arzberger's question, Mr. Self reported there is almost no
apartment vacancy at the present time.
Mr. Self indicated he would prepare a booklet detailing the information he presented today
for distribution to the Committee members. He related information about a plan to develop
64 residential lots, with 1,200 to 1,800 square- foot houses in the town proper, for $ 70,000
to $ 85,000. Additionally he noted there is a plan to develop a second phase of the
Shepard Estates and another 160 acres to be developed west of Melrose and north of
Baseline, within the Buckeye town limits. Mr. Self indicated the Valley View newspaper
reported a new development, Sun Valley Ranch, consisting of 120 lots for manufactured
homes, under way on Johnson Road just north of Interstate 10 at approximately 250th
Avenue. He noted the advertisement lists prices beginning at $ 69,900 or $ 419.00 per
month.
Senator Noland asked that Mr. Self report back to the Committee on some of the tools that
the Buckeye City Council feels the Legislature could provide to help meet housing needs.
She commented that a manufactured subdivision in the $ 40,000 to $ 50,000 range and
additional rental housing is closer to " affordable" than one- acre lots with houses. She also
asked for an inventory of available housing as an aid to planning, reiterating the
requirement that cities participate actively.
As regards spousal employment, Mr. Self related that the Palo Verde Nuclear Plant
employs approximately 2,800 people, 14 percent of whom are female; Wal Mart distribution
center employs 250 people, 25 percent of whom are female; a manufacturer of mobile
homes employs 21 5 people, 15 percent of whom are female; the Beam Corporation, a cut-and-
sew- operation, employs 500 people, almost all of whom are female, and the school
system could potentially hire spouses.
Michael Ortega, City Manager, City of Douglas, explained Douglas was a " company
town" when Phelps Dodge mined there and since its departure the prison has taken up
some of the void. He noted there is a current housing shortage and prices are escalating.
Mr. Ortega indicated the $ 50,000 to $ 60,000 range of housing exists, but it is very rare,
commenting there are plenty in the $ 17,000 to $ 20,000 and $ 180,000 to $ 250,000 ranges.
Consequently, he explained prison employees choose to live in Benson and Wilcox,
commuting long distances.
Mr. Ortega indicated he is working with developers in an effort to encourage them to come
to Douglas, also to make improvements, such as expanding the golf course. He explained
a master plan is being developed and he is seeking support in developing the necessary
infrastructure for growth. Mr. Ortega acknowledged the City's partnership with the prison,
noting inmate labor recently built a recycling center in Douglas.
October 19,1995
Page 6
JOINT COMMITTEE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS
Senator Noland requested that Mr. Ortega report to the Committee on specific housing
needs and what types of incentives or tools the Legislature could provide that would be
helpful. She also asked for a list of projects being undertaken with inmate labor and how
they are coordinated.
Mr. Ortega responded that one of the major deterrents to purchasing housing is the down-payment,
even when there is a regular stream of income. He suggested an incentive
program centered on this would be helpful.
Senator Noland suggested providing a " fast- trackn for zoning, platting etc., to keep costs
down for developers.
In response to Representative Smith's inquiry as to when DOC could report current
information, Scott Smith indicated DOC plans to send a survey to prison employees and
could report when responses are compiled, suggesting it would take one month.
Representative Smith suggested it needs to take less time. and announced the next
meeting would be scheduled when it is learned how quickly that information could be
compiled.
Without objection, the meeting was adjourned at 5: 00 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
Alice Kloppel,
Committee Secretary
( Tapes on file in the Office of the Senate Secretary)
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
Minutes of
Ad Hoc Joint Legislative
Committee on
Affordable Housing for
Correctional Service Officers
Date: Thursday, November 30, 1995
Time: 10: OO p. m.
Place: House Hearing Room 1
Representative Smith called the meeting to order at 10: lO a. m. and the following
attendance was noted.
Members Present:
Senator Gus Arzberger Representative Jack Brown
Senator Larry Chesley Representative Joe Hart
Senator Patricia A. Noland, Cochair Representative Tom Smith, Cochair
Members Absent:
None
Staff:
Jason Bezozo - Senate
Teri Grier - House
Martin Harrison - House
Joni Hoffman - Senate
Kathi Knox - House
Scott Smith, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Department of Corrections ( DOC),
reviewed the results of the Department of Corrections Housing Needs Survey ( filed with
original minutes). The summarized results of the survey are as follows:
1. The Department's Officers demonstrated a clear need for means of reducing
their monthly housing and transportation expenses.
' 2. 50.6% of Officers reported owning or purchasing their own home, and 47.0%
reported living in a rental property.
Minutes of Ad Hoc Joint Legislative
Committee on Affordable Housing
for Correctional Service Officers
November 30,1995
Page 2
3. 61.9% of Officers indicated that the availability of affordable housing would serve
as an incentive for them to relocate to a rural prison complex.
4. Among those surveyed, the majority ( 62.0%) indicated that, should affordable
housing be made available, and were they to take advantage of it, they would be
more interested in purchasing a home than in renting.
5. As for perceptions1opinions regarding rural prison communities, Officers
responded as follows:
Not enough accommodations, conveniences or cultural1
recreational activities in a rural prison community 47.1%
Prefer simplified lifestyle in rural communities 46.1%
Good place to raise a family 43.1 %
My spouse or another family member would be unable
to find a job or would have difficulty finding work 35.8%
Schools are better in rural communities 28.3%
Schools are better in larger cities 13.7%
6. Concerning possible incentives to relocate to a rural prison community, Officers
responded as follows:
Extra pay for living in a rural area
A promotion
Affordable and adequate housing
Better storeslshopping in or near the rural community
Inexpensive and convenient transportation
Would not move from where I live now
7. Regarding which rural prisons they might be willing to relocate to, the largest
numbers of Officers indicated an interest in relocating to the Florence and Eyman
complexes.
8. Although a higher percentage indicated an interest in relocating to ASPC-Florence
than to ASPC- Safford, nonetheless, Safford was the most frequent
cityltownlrural area selected for possible relocation.
Minutes. of Ad Hoc Joint Legislative
Committee on Affordable Housing
for Correctional Service Officers
November 30,1995
Page 3
Mr. Smith concluded there is both the need and interest among Correctional Service
Officers ( CSO) and staff for relocating to affordable housing made available in areas
near rural prisons in the Department of Corrections.
Senator Noland expressed concern regarding housing affordability and housing
availability in the areas the report outlined. Mr. Smith responded that information
pertaining to housing affordability and housing availability was not included in the
report, but the information will be provided at a later date.
Senator Arzberger asked if the reason why a large percentage of Officers want to move
to Florence or Eyman is for better wages. Mr. Smith said no specific conclusion was
drawn by the questions and answers provided in the survey as to why the Officers want
to move to Florence or Eyman. Mr. Smith said the reason could be that because
Florence and Eyman are the main complexes within the prison system, the Officers
may desire to work in the central area where special programs are offered.
Mr. Smith concluded there is both the need and the interest among Correctional Service
Officers and staff for relocating to affordable housing made available in areas near rural
prisons in the DOC.
Salvador F. Canchola, Housing Operations Director, PPEP Microbusiness and
Housing Development Corporation, reviewed the Arizona Rural Housing Delivery
Systems ( filed with original minutes).
Steve Capobres, Director of Housing, Department of Commerce, reviewed
Alternatives for Legislative Action ( filed with original minutes). Although many
alternatives were discussed, the following are the top four alternatives recommended
by Mr. Capobres.
1) State Income Tax Credits
State income tax credits could be granted to new affordable housing projects that
are built in the prison cities. These credits could be taken by the owners of the
projects or sold for cash to other Arizona businesses who could benefit from the
tax credit. This concept is similar to the federal Low- Income Housing Tax Credit
program which provides the same incentive toward federal income taxes.
Minutes of Ad Hoc Joint Legislative
Committee on Affordable Housing
for Correctional Service Officers
November 30,1995
Page 4
* Federal income tax credits are available annually to developers willing to
build or rehabilitate residential multi- family apartment projects and make
them affordable. To date, almost $ 29 million in tax credits has been
allocated, assisting in the creation of approximately 7,800 units of housing.
These projects have leveraged nearly $ 366 million into Arizona's
construction industry. Over 50 percent of the projects are in rural areas.
* This program provides a dollar- for- dollar credit against federal income tax
liability for ownerldevelopers of qualifying residential rental projects. The
credit is intended to produce a cash subsidy to aid in the construction of
affordable housing. In return, the developer agrees to restrict rents for a
minimum of 30 years. Over $ 5 million is available every year. Since this
credit can be taken for 10 years, the program generates $ 50 million in total
availability per year. Since most developers sell this credit for 50 cents on
the dollar, $ 25 million in subsidy can be generated per year from the
program for apartment construction. The program currently receives
requests for over four times the amount available.
2) State Equity Fund
One of the biggest barriers to the development of affordable housing is the
inability to raise private investment or financing. This proposal involves the
creation of an independent non- profit entity ( Housing Arizona) devoted to raising
equity investment. This non- profit organization would be highly skilled in multi-family
development and would only do deals in conjunction with other non- profit
organizations.
It would not supplant existing non- profit organizations, only enhance their ability
by lending expertise they lack. Instead of working to make all non- profits
developers ( costly), focus the expertise in one place that could partner with
others. Additionally, since this organization would have credible staff, it would
be able to attract private investment and financing. By raising investment funds
( equity), a pool could be created large enough to facilitate the financing of
smaller rural deals.
Minutes of Ad Hoc Joint Legislative
Committee on Affordable Housing
for Correctional Service Officers
November 30,1995
Page 5
Start- up funds would be necessary to begin to raise the private capital to begin.
Once the pool is created, the organization would be self- sufficient.
3) Increase State Housina Trust Fund
The Trust Fund is currently funded by 35% of all unclaimed property. This is
about $ 3 million a year. These resources are used for existing affordable
housing programs, largely leveraging other federal and private sources of funding
( up to 10 times). There is a current strain on the Trust Fund since many
organizations rely on its resources.
An increase in the percentage could be proposed and targeted toward projects
in the prison cities, similar to the Economic Demonstration District Program a few
years ago in Florence.
4) General Fund A~ propriations
Probably the easiest way to help the prison housing problem is to appropriate
enough general funds to be used toward the construction of housing in the prison
cities. It could take two forms:
1. Direct appropriations to the Department of Corrections to allow them to
build and operate housing themselves.
2. Use the appropriations as a guarantee to leverage other private financing
toward privately constructed and operated housing in the prison cities.
The resources could be offered to both private and non- profit developers
who could put together the best and most cost effective developments.
Senator Noland commented that by providing low income and moderate income
housing with incentives to Correctional Service Officers, property will become available
for people to rent or buy. The effect of the whole housing market in an area should be
taken into consideration. Senator Noland agreed with Number 2 under General Fund
Appropriations.
Minutes of Ad Hoc Joint Legislative
Committee on Affordable Housing
for Correctional Service Officers
November 30,1995
Page 6
John C. F. Geib, Interim Town Manager, Town of Florence, provided information
and charts regarding the availability of existing housing in Florence, Arizona ( filed with
original minutes).
Delbert Self, Town Manager, Town of Buckeye, provided information and charts
regarding the availability and affordability of housing in Buckeye Valley ( filed with
original minutes).
Senator Noland suggested providing the city council members of other small Arizona
cities with a copy of the suggested incentive program for Correctional Service Officers
prepared by Mr. Capobres, asking the city council members for a response.
Representative Smith agreed.
The meeting adjourned at 11: 30 a. m.
Respectfully submitted,
Karman Cobb
Committee Secretary
( Attachments and tapes on file in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate.)
CHIFr SI- EPTS OFFICE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE JAN 0 5 1996
AD HOC JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS
Minutes of the Meeting
Thursday, December 21, 1995
11 : 00 a. m., Senate Hearing Room 3
Members Present
Senator Noland, Co- chairman
Representative Smith, Co- chairman
Senator Chesley
Members Absent
Senator Arzberger
Representative Hart
Representative Brown
Staff
Joni Hoffman, Senate
Teri Grier, House
Kathi Knox, House
Co- chairman Noland convened the meeting at 11: I0 a. m. She explained the Committee
would discuss informational items until a quorum was present to adopt recommendations.
Joni Hoffman, Senate Research Analyst, referred to a previously- distributed packet of
responses from cities to legislative options put forth at the previous meeting ( filed with
original minutes). She additionally distributed an " Overview of Preferred Alternatives,"
( filed with original minutes) ranking the cities' choices of legislative options and explained
each city's preference.
Ms. Hoffman indicated Buckeye chose targeting current state resources and general fund
appropriations, commenting that it is now actively utilizing resources under State
programs. She also noted Buckeye approved of general fund appropriations to allow
quicker development of affordable housing and to cut through red tape. Ms Hoffman
indicated it also supports the continuation of tax- exempt status of housing bonds,
especially a personal income tax credit for first- time homebuyers.
Ms. Hoffman explained Yuma chose targeting current state resources, a state equity fund
and increasing the State Housing Trust Fund, but indicated Yuma asserts it does not have
an affordable housing problem. She suggested that a close look reveals it may have a
problem, noting it currently participates in housing programs offered under state programs.
Senator Chesley commented that when he was last in Yuma, housing which he guessed
was priced at $ 65,000 to $ 95,000 was being built everywhere. He suggested Yuma was
the least needful of the cities under discussion.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS
December 21,1995
Page 2
Senator Noland agreed and additionally acknowledged the large quantity of mobile home
parks in Yuma provides a range of housing availability. She also noted the military base
there tends to create more housing options.
I
Ms. Hoffman indicated Douglas acknowledges it does have a housing shortage. She
explained a group of homes priced at $ 70,000 will soon be available, but the $ 10,000
I
down payment may pose a problem for employees with a $ 24,000 annual income.
Ms. Hoffman explained housing availability is the biggest problem in Winslow, relating that
even if more expensive homes were built, this would free- up more affordable housing. I
Ms. Hoffman explained Safford feels there is ample supply of state land that is currently
not being utilized and affordable housing could provide the " highest and best use of the
land," to comply with constitutional provisions. She related Safford approves of state
linked deposit program, because it keeps financing in the private sector and increasing the
I
State Housing Trust Fund because it is already functioning. Ms. Hoffman indicated Safford
liked general fund appropriations least, because it feared the funding would be subject to I
legislative whims, but generally approves of legislative involvement in the area of
affordable housing.
Ms. Hoffman explained that Florence recently annexed 200 acres to target for housing
development and indicated there is also privately- owned undeveloped land there. Ms.
Hoffman indicated the price of this land is high and infrastructure would be expensive to
develop as well, emphasizing Florence definitely has a housing problem I
In response to Senator Chesley's question, Senator Noland explained utilizing state- linked
deposits involves ranking lenders who are competing for the investment of state general
funds, in part based on their track record in making resources available for affordable b
housing.
Senator Noland noted that the option most often selected was to Increase the State I
Housing Trust Fund.
In response to Senator Noland's inquiry regarding which options the Department of I
Corrections ( DOC) would most like to coordinate efforts on, Scott Smith, Legislative
Liaison, DOC, did not offer specific suggestions, but indicated DOC would support
whatever option was chosen.
Senator Chesley commented that to increase the State Housing Trust Fund means general
fund monies must be taken from other budgets, creating conflicts with other intended
I
recipients. He suggested this may not be the most practical choice. I
December 21,1995
Page 3
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES OFFICERS
Senator Noland noted it may be possible to include a $ 1 million or $ 2 million appropriation
for affordable housing in coordination with prison expansion efforts, sharing costs with the
city where expansion takes place. She asked Steve Capobres, Department of
Commerce, where such an incentive may work best.
Mr. Capobres suggested cities are better- equipped to deal with infrastructure
development, recommending the state provide funding for actual on- site construction. He
explained the cities under discussion are already being targeted for existing housing
programs.
Mr. Capobres recommended appropriating money which can be offered to developers,
encouraging the cities to leverage some of that money for infrastructure and awarding a
project to the developer with the best proposal.
Representative Smith asked if the State currently offers a tax credit as an incentive to
developers.
Ms. Capobres indicated currently a federal income tax program is used to build new
apartments and rehabilitate older ones. He explained this program will sunset in 1997, so
cities under discussion will be targeted during 1996. Mr. Capobres indicated the idea
behind the state income tax credit was to replace the federal program when it dissolved.
He explained tax credits are sold for cash to build projects.
Representative Smith asked if the tax credit program amounts to $ 7 million. Mr. Capobres
indicated it amounts to approximately $ 5 million a year, but can be multiplied over a ten-year
period, amounting to $ 50 million available annually. He further explained this is sold
. for 50 cents on the dollar, raising $ 25 million in construction resources.
Representative Smith asked if a significant improvement in affordable housing availability
for Correctional Service Officers ( CSO) could be realized with a $ 5 million tax credit.
Mr. Capobres confirmed a state income tax credit would be a useful incentive to
developers. He commented that one advantage is, it is forgone tax revenue and not
necessarily an appropriation. Mr. Capobres projected the $ 5 million could produce 1,500
units of housing.
In response to Representative Smith's question, Mr. Capobres suggested that depending
upon each separate market, he feels there would be developers interested in building
affordable housing in the cities under discussion, if a $ 5 million state income tax credit was
allocated. He explained that the federal income standard is set pretty low, making it
difficult to entice developers to such markets. Mr. Capobres suggested negotiating levels
of income for a state income tax credit to give developers enough incentive.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS
December 21,1995
Page 4
Senator Noland expressed her concern that different levels of housing should be built to
provide for different levels of employees, not only multi- housing. She asked if the federal
program develops mainly multi- housing.
Mr. Capobres acknowledged most federal developments are multi- housing, emphasizing
this is the reason all options to promote home ownership need to be explored.
Senator Noland offered suggestions such as: providing up- front money which could be
paid back over time or at a good interest rate after sale and looking at prison legislation
for an opportunity to attach a state tax credit that could be legislatively imposed and
coordinated through Department of Commerce.
Senator Noland asked that Mr. Capobres work with Scott Smith and the Director of DOC
to look at what could be done at a new prison site and prison expansion sites. Senator
Noland directed them to develop some recommendations on how a program should be
funded to provide necessary levels of housing, suggesting it could be part of a DOC
budget request as it builds a new prison or expands an existing one.
There being no quorum present, Senator Noland indicated recommendations would wait
until more Committee members were present and announced another meeting will be held
January 3, 1996 at 3: 00 p. m. to hear recommendations.
In response to Senator Chesley's questions about tax credits, it was clarified that the
federal tax credit is for rental properties only. In response to Senator Chesley's inquiry
about a state tax credit program, Mr. Capobres acknowledged the Legislature can write
the law differently for Arizona.
Representative Smith commented that Florence should be highly considered, noting it has
the highest turnover rate of CSOs.
Senator Chesley agreed all the cities under discussion need to be considered,
emphasizing Winslow is the one in dire straits. He noted that at least Florence CSOs can
reside in Mesa, Phoenix or even Tucson, but Winslow has no similar surroundings.
Senator Noland and he agreed Douglas is similar to Winslow in this regard. Senator
Noland acknowledged Winslow has always been in dire straits since the prison was built.
Mr. Capobres indicated he would develop an example choosing Douglas first and possibly
Florence, as directed by the Committee, and was encouraged by members to be creative
in considering other reasonable options not already mentioned.
December 21,1995
Page 5
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES OFFICERS
Senator Noland observed this could serve as a beginning for coordination between DOC
and the Department of Commerce to better address the issue of affordable housing in
prison communities.
Representative Smith suggested contacting the City Manager of Buckeye, who has
developed well- organized housing efforts. Mr. Capobres indicated he would be seeing him
after today's meeting.
Without objection, the meeting was adjourned at 11: 50 a. m.
Respectfully submitted,
Alice Kloppel,
Committee Secretary
( Tape and attachments filed with original minutes in the Office of the Senate Secretary)
RECEIVED
CHIEF CLERK'? OFFICE
AD HOC JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON JAN 0 5 1996
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS
Minutes of the Meeting
Wednesday, January 3, 1995
3: 00 p. m., House Hearing Room 4
Members Present
Senator Arzberger
Representative Brown
Senator Chesley
Representative Hart
Senator Noland, Co- chairman
Representative Smith, Co- chairman
Staff
Joni Hoffman, Senate Analyst
Kathi Knox, House Analyst
Teri Grier, House Analyst
Co- chairman Smith convened the meeting at 3: 50 p. m. and the attendance was noted.
Steve Capobres, Department of Commerce, Housing and Infrastructure
Development, distributed copies of an " Analysis on the use of State Funds with State
Income Tax Credits," ( filed with original minutes) and reviewed considerations and
recommendations presented in it. He suggested income tax credits for single- family
development would not be worthwhile, given the current low market interest rates, the 8
percent maximum Arizona income tax rate which could be given and the question of
whether it is legal to target income tax credits for a specific group of buyers.
Mr. Capobres recommended an appropriation could be mandated to provide assistance
to buyers and builders. With regard to the buyer, assistance could be given in the form
of down payments and closing costs, reducing the cost of mortgage interest rate or
reducing the mortgage amount ( i. e. from $ 70,000 to $ 60,000).
Senator Chesley commented that even if a buy- down is provided, most buyers still do not
have the down payment or closing costs. Mr. Capobres acknowledged this is the main
problem.
Representative Smith asked whether a down payment would be a gift or would be repaid
at some time.
Mr. Capobres indicated that usually a deed restriction is placed on the property, requiring
the repayment of the grant upon sale of the house. He noted this provides encouragement
for the tenants to stay in the home and not profit from selling it.
With regard to assisting the builder, Mr. Capobres recommended competitively soliciting
private sector development interest and proposals from within the affected market through
the Request for Proposal process. He further suggested providing assistance in interest
COMMITTEE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS
Page 2
January 3,1996
write- downs or loan guarantees; site assembly and acquisition support; infrastructure
development and selected pre- development expenditures, such as legal, engineering and
permitting fees.
Senator Noland asked if an up- front allotment for development expenditures or a cost-sharing
by the cities involved would be possible in this type of program. She suggested
these incentives could be paid back at the point of sale of the project.
Mr. Capobres acknowledged the idea is possible, reiterating that income tax credits are
not being recommended for single- family development, rather an appropriation which can
be used for pre- development expenses. He explained the major problem in financing
development is the interim, or pre- development, costs and recommended putting an
appropriation toward these.
Mr. Capobres next addressed multi- family development, reviewing specific financing
examples on pages three, four and five of the handout. Mr. Capobres explained the
financing schemes in the handout are based upon a development cost of $ 55,000 for a 40-
unit multi- family dwelling, with a maximum rent of $ 425 for a 1 - bedroom unit and $ 650 for
a 2- bedroom unit.
Representative Brown and Representative Smith discussed the current starting salary for
Correctional Service Officers ( CSO), agreeing it is $ 20,500. Mr. Capobres explained his
figures address salary levels beginning at $ 18,000 and ranging to $ 30,000.
Representative Smith emphasized it is important to establish what percentage of CSOs
were receiving what salary, suggesting the majority were making the starting salary of
$ 20,500. Representative Brown suggested there was a spread within the range.
Mr. Capobres further discussed income, expenses, acquisition and costs of the projected
multi- family dwelling, noting it would cost $ 2.3 million to develop such a project. He
explained there is an $ 800,000 gap between the cost of development and the $ 1.5 million
maximum mortgage that a bank would allow based on the salary range being discussed.
Mr. Capobres suggested filling this gap with a combination of tax credits and
appropriations to make the project feasible. He also recommended competitively soliciting
private sector development interest and proposals from within the affected market area
and mirroring the federal tax credit program.
Mr. Capobres suggested a tax credit could be used for everything associated with
construction costs and the appropriations could be used for everything the tax credit does
not cover including: land, marketing, permanent loan fees, title recording fees,
development fees above cap and some legal fees.
Page 3
January 3,1996
COMMITTEE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS
Senator Noland suggested devising a revolving fund as a mechanism to recoup
appropriations upon the sale of projects to finance ongoing projects. Mr. Capobres agreed
this is important and can be structured in.
Senator Noland asked if there are such stipulations currently in place and Mr. Capobres
explained existing programs have some form of deed restriction stipulating requirements
e. g., to pay back over time, maintain affordability, etc.
Senator Chesley emphasized that builders have not developed properties where there is
no incentive.
Representative Smith suggested that targeted cities participate in providing incentives as
any development would enhance revenues there.
Senator Noland suggested the best opportunity for a pilot project of this type in both
single- family and multi- family developments would be in Buckeye. Additionally she
suggested another project in Safford or Douglas where there is an existing problem.
Senator Noland also suggested part of the new prison appropriation be used for housing
projects in conjunction with city incentives.
Representative Brown indicated Winslow has participated with such incentives and a multi-family
dwelling was constructed. However, he noted Winslow still had not been able to
attract any developers without some up- front financial assistance. He related that housing
is available in Springerville and St. Johns and that turnover among CSOs is very low. He
agreed that incentives should be developed in cities with existing problems to attract
developers.
Mr. Capobres explained the Department of Commerce was involved in the Winslow
project, providing $ 600,000 to a nonprofit developer of the multi- family dwelling. He
ind~ cateda memo was dispatched nationwide to attract developers to build in W~ nslow, b ut
it received no response from for- profit builders. Mr. Capobres additionally commented that
Winslow did not contribute a great deal; that the land was sold at face value with no
discount.
Mr. Capobres suggested creating incentives for local government, identifying cities
needlng an appropriation and making the money available to whichever city will work with
a developer to formulate the best project. He indicated once built, this project could be
repeated.
Representative Smith acknowledged this is an excellent idea. He suggested writing a
communication to the cities under consideration relating the idea and asking them to
COMMITTEE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS
Page 4
January 3,1996
respond with their input for a development plan, then choosing the most reasonable plan
submitted.
Senator Arzberger questioned whether the suggestion would be a fair solution, as all the
cities have a need, but some have a greater tax base and more resources to offer than
others. Senator Arzberger asserted the State will need to provide up- front assistance but
agreed the cities should provide whatever aid they can, suggesting multi- family housing
would be the best option. He suggested affordable single- family housing is already
available.
Senator Chesley suggested there needs to be some conviction demonstrated by the cities
and that those most willing to provide incentives should be considered first.
Senator Noland suggested putting together legislation to appropriate $ 1 million to the
Department of Commerce to be used for at least two participating grants for single- family
and multi- family developments, which would be put out for any city to apply for and
awarded to whichever city can provide the best match of its own resources. She further
suggested this be set up as a revolving fund, that conditions for repayment be stipulated,
based upon what input the city provides and how much money it is asking for. Senator
Noland explained this may or may not include Buckeye; that housing may be included in
ground- up prison costs there.
In response to Representative Smith's inquiry, Mr. Capobres confirmed that his office could
proceed with such a plan if the appropriation was made. There was general agreement
that the money, based on very different areas of expertise, should be appropriated to the
Department of Commerce and not the Department of Corrections.
Representative Smith suggested that housing not be restricted only to CSOs, that
vacancies could also be offered to similarly quaiifled families in the general public.
Senator Noland suggested providing a CSO preference like veterans are provided, setting
aside a certain percentage of the project for them and opening further vacancies to the
whole community. She requested that Mr. Capobres provide guidance on wording for draft
legislation and incorporate the program into others already existing.
Senator Arzberger opined preference could be given to CSOs and asked that repayment
of incentive and maintaining affordability be stipulated. He specifically mentioned
stipulating a restriction against raising the rent to price the targeted population out of the
market.
Mr. Capobres indicated these mechanisms are currently included in legal documentation
as a matter of course, phasing repayment depending upon how much subsidy is provided,
Page 5
January 3,1996
COMMITTEE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING
FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS
how long the project must remain affordable and regulating rents. He did not recommend
stipulations be placed perpetually, but building in a cutoff into the future.
Senator Noland moved that draft legislation be developed which
encompasses city participation in at least two affordable housing
projects to include single- family and multi- family projects, provides
preference for CSOs, phases repayment of subsidies into a revolving
fund and appropriates $ 1 million to the Department of Commerce,
Housing and Infrastructure Development to establish the fund.
The motion CARRIED by a voice vote.
Senator Noland asked that the draft be developed by Mr. Capobres working with
Legislative Council and that it be delivered to her and Representative Smith for review and
dissemination to other Committee members. Mr. Capobres agreed to work with Legislative
Council on the draft language.
Without objection, the meeting was adjourned at 4: 35 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
. .
Alice Kloppel,
Committee Secretary
( Tape and attachment on file in the Office of the Senate Secretary)
Department of Corrections
Housing Needs Survey
Division of Human Resources/ Development
EEDS SURVEY
SAMUEL A. LEWIS
Director
SHARON C. MAYES
Assistant Director
Jo MCDANIEL
Administrator, Planning Bureau
November, 1995
CSO HOUSING NEEDS SURVEY
CSO HOUSING NEEDS SURVEY
Task Force Participants
Jo McDaniel
Administrator, Planning Bureau
Ann 0. Roblyer
Special Projects Manager, Planning Bureau
Russ Savage
Operations Officer
Division of Adult Institutions
Scott Smith
Legislative Liaison
Daryl R. Fischer
Research Manager, Planning Bureau
Data Analvsis Provided Bv:
Andy Thaker
Research Analyst, Planning Bureau
Humberto Cisneros
Research Analyst, Planning Bureau
CONTENTS
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.
Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
List of Tables
Table 1 : Complex Where Presently Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 2: Current CSO Series Position Filled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Table 3: County of Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 4: CityTTownJRural Area of Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 5: Driving Distances to Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 6: Number of People Residing with You . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 7: Total Household Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 8: Current Housing Arrangement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 9: Range of Current Home Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 10: Range of Current Monthly Rent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 1 1 : Affordable Housing an Incentive to Relocate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 12: Affordable Housing an lncentive by Current
Prison Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 13: Affordable Housing an lncentive by Current
CSO Series Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 14: Affordable Housing Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 1 5: Affordable Housing Bedrooms Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 16: Affordable Housing Mortgage/ Rent Willing to Pay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 17: Perceptions/ Opinions of Rural Prison Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 18: Incentives to Relocate to Rural Prison Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 19: Prison Complexes Might Consider Relocating To . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 20: Cities/ Towns/ Rural Areas Might Consider
Relocating To . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Department of Corrections conducted a survey of staff members in the Correctional
Service Officer ( CSO) series to determine their housing needs, and specifically how many
would be interested in relocating to rural prisons should affordable housing be made
available in those areas. CSO- series staff include Cadets, CSO Irs, CSO Ills, Sergeants,
Lieutenants, Captains and Majors, who will be referred to hereafter as " Officers " A total
of 3,249 or 65.9% of 4,927 Officers responded to the survey, and from this population
a systematic random sample of 91 5 surveys was selected for analysis purposes.
The results of the survey may be summarized as follows:
The Deeartment's Officers demonstrate a clear need for means of reducing
their monthly housina and trans~ ortation exeenses. Overall, 30.3% of
Officers live at least 40 miles from work, and as many as 1 in 16 live at least
70 miles from work. Almost one- half ( 49.7%) have at least three people
living with them, and more than 2 in 5 ( 40.8%) have total annual household
incomes of under $ 25,000.
o 50.6% of Officers reeorted ownina or ~ urchasintqh eir own home, and 47.0%
re~ ortedli vina in a rental Droeertv. The most typical home value was in the
range $ 50,000-$ 74,999, and the most typical monthly rent in the range
$ 300.00-$ 449.99. However, 31.5% of the home owners reported a home
value of under $ 50,000, while 23.0% of the renters reported a monthly rent
of under $ 300.
61.9% of Officers indicated that the availabilitv of affordable housina would
Serve as an incentive for them to relocate to a rural ~ r i s o nc omelex. This
equates to 3,050 officers Department- wide. The percentage stating that
affordable housing would serve as an incentive was highest for Officers
currently employed at rural prison complexes, including prison sites at Ft.
Grant ( 85.1 %), Yuma ( 81.2%), Safford ( 70.2%), Winslow ( 69.0%), and
Douglas ( 67.8%). The least interest was expressed by Officers currently
employed at complexes in Tucson ( 47.1 %) and Phoenix ( 47.0%). Officers
employed at the Eyman ( 58.5%), Florence ( 57.8%), and Perryville ( 56.7%)
complexes indicated a moderate interest. However, the lowest percentage
indicating an interest in relocating was still significant at 47.0% ( Phoenix
complex). Furthermore, CSO Its indicated somewhat more interest in
relocating ( 66.4%) than did the higher- salaried CSO 11' s ( 57.2%).
Amona those surveved, the maioritv ( 62.0%) indicated that. should affordable
housina be made available, and were thev to take advantaae of it, thev would
be more interested in ~ urchasina a iome than in rentinq. Most ( 76.2%)
indicated that they would require at least three bedrooms to relocate. More
than two- thirds ( 68.2%) indicated that they would not be willing to pay more
than $ 450 a month in rent or mortgage payment. The survey results indicate
that, on average, Officers would desire to relocate only if they could achieve
an actual reduction in their monthly mortgagetrental payment.
As for ~ erce~ tions/ o~ iniorenasa rdina rural ~ risonc ommunities. Officers
res~ ondeda s follows:
Not enough accommodations, conveniences or cultural/
recreational activities in a rural prison community . . . . . . . . 47.1 %
Prefer simplified lifestyle in rural communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.1 %
Good place to raise a family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.1 %
My spouse or another family member would be unable
to find a job or would have difficulty finding work . . . . . . . 35.8%
Schools are better in rural communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.3%
Schools are better in larger cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.7%
a Concernina ~ ossiblei ncentives to relocate to a rural ~ risonc ommunitv,
Officers res~ ondeda s follows:
Extra pay for living in a rural area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.8%
A promotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.4%
Affordable and adequate housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.5%
Better stores/ shopping in or near the rural community . . . . . . . . . 31.3%
Inexpensive and convenient transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.9%
Would not move from where I live now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.5%
Reqardina which rural ~ risonsth ev miaht be willina to relocate to, the lar~ est
numbers of Officers indicated an interest in relocatina to the Florence and
Evman com~ lexes. The percentages for specific institutions are as follows:
ASPC- Florence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.5 %
ASPC- Eyman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.8%
ASPC- Winslow- Apache ( Springerville) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.1 %
ASPC- Safford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.9%
ASPC- Buckeye ( Proposed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.7%
ASPC- Winslow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.7%
ASPC- Douglas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.0%
ASP- Ft. Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.2%
ASPC- Phoenix- Globe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.6%
ASPC- Perryville- Yuma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3%
Guriouslv. althouqh a hiclher ~ ercentaaein dicated an interest in relocatina to
ASPC- Florence than to ASPC- Safford, nonetheless Safford was the most
freauent citv/ townlrural area selected for ~ ossiblere location:
Safford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.3%
Florence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 - 1%
SpringervilletEagar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.0%
Yuma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.8%
Apache'Junction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.4%
Buckeye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.8%
~ a s a~ r a n d e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 5.7%
Globe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 5.7%
Ft. Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 5.3%
Winslow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 4.8%
Show Low . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.1 %
Coolidge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 2.5%
Avondaleflolleson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3%
Douglas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.0%
Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Florence) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. O%
Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Buckeye- Proposed) . . . . . . . . . . 10.9%
Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Winslow- Apache) . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6%
Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 0.3%
Sierra Vista . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 .9%
St. Johns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 .6%
Willcox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 .2%
Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Eyman) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7%
The overriding conclusion of the sunfey is that there is both the need and the interest
among CSO series staff for relocating to affordable housing made available in areas near
rural prisons in the Department of Corrections.
INTRODUCTION
In late October 1995, the Department of Corrections received a request from the Ad Hoc
Joint Legislative Committee on Affordable Housing for Correctional Service Officers to
conduct a survey of CSOs to ascertain their housing needs. Specifically, the Committee
expressed an interest in determining how many CSOs would consider relocating to rural
prison complexes should affordable housing be made available in those areas. Given
significant interest among CSO's, there may be the possibility that the state could offer
incentives to encourage developers to build affordable housing for CSOs in rural areas.
In response to the request, a task force was formed in the Department of Corrections to
coordinate the survey. The task force was given the responsibility of drawing up the
survey, selecting a target sample, administering the survey, and providing a report on the
results by mid- November 1995. Subsequently, a survey form was developed which
addressed a range of CSO housing issues.
As a result of a meeting of the task force, it was decided that all CSO series positions
would be surveyed ( not just CSOs) and that all institutions would be represented.
Subsequently, a meeting was held with institutional staff to acquaint them with the survey.
Staff were briefed concerning 1) the reasons for the survey, 2) the importance of the
survey, 3) the rationale for including staff from urban prisons, 4) the requirements of
individual items from the survey, and 5) any questions or concerns on the part of staff.
The institutional staff in attendance were then requested to provide survey forms to all CSO
series staff in their respective institutions, to monitor completion, and to ensure that
responses were as complete as possible. Finally, they were asked to forward the surveys
by express mail by 5: 00 p. m. November 3, 1995, or to hand deliver them to Central Office
by the close of business November 6, 1995. All institutions were able to comply within
the established timeframes.
Approximately 3,250 surveys were returned, with a few incomplete or completed by
employees other than CSO series staff. These latter surveys were deleted from the study.
Some questionnaires are still coming in as of the date of this writing, and these surveys
have not been included in the database for this report. Tentatively, it appears that
approximately two- thirds of available CSO series staff responded to the survey.
Because of time constraints and limited staff resources, it was necessary to draw a sample
from the completed questionnaires. A sample totalling 91 5 was selected, which represents
19% of the 4,927 CSO series staff on regular duty, permanently filling an authorized and
budgeted position and including staff on temporary leave ( annual, sick, jury duty, etc.) as
of November 7, 1995. The sampling was done randomly within complexes, with
approximately one in five surveys selected for the sample. However, surveys were not
selected randomly across complexes, as a minimum of 50 surveys per complex was
established in order to ensure reliable results for individual complexes.
The 3- page survey is reproduced on the pages following.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING QUESTIONNAIRE
November 1995
The Ad Hoc Joint Legislative Committee on Affordable Housing for Correctional Service Officers has requested ADC to
complete a survey of CSOs to determine housing needs. In particular, they want to know if low- cost, or reduced- cost housing
would draw CSO- series staff to prisons in rural communities. This survey requires a commitment from institutional staff to
provide as complete a sampling of staff as possible in the short time frames allowed. The items require you to either write your
answer in the space provided or to place a check mark by your answer. Director Lewis and the members of the Committee
appreciate your cooperation with this project.
1. Specify the complex and unit where you presently work: ASPC: Unit.
2. Where do you currently reside ( town, city, rural county):
3. If you have worked at other ADC prisons in the past, please indicate where:
ASPC: Unit
ASPC: Unit
4. What is your current position?
Cadet CSO I CSO II Sergeant Lieutenant Captain Major
5. How many people reside with you now'!
None ( live alone)
1 - 2
3 - 5
C3 Over 5 ( specify how many -.)
6. What is your current household income from all sources'!
$ 19,000 to $ 24,999
$ 25,000 to $ 49,999
$ 50,000 to $ 69,999
$ 70,000 to $ 99,999
G $ 100,000 or over ( Specify amount: $ .)
7. How far do you currently reside from your work site?
Up to 4.9 miles
5 to 9.9 miles
10 to 19.9 miles
20 to 29.9 miles
30 miles or more ( specify how many miles .)
8. Do you own or are you purchasing your home? Yes No.
9. If yes, is your home:
A house? A townhouse?
10. What is the current value of your home?
$ 10,000 to $ 24,999
$ 25.000 to $ 49,000
$ 50.000 to $ 74,999
$ 75,000 to $ 99,999
$ 100.000 or over ( specify value: $ .)
1 1 . Do you rent? Yes No
A mobile home?
12. If yes, do you rent a:
House, Townhouse Apartment Mobile home
13. How much rent do you pay per month? ( Also complete this question if you do not pay for housing.)
0 to $ 149.99 $ 600.00 to $ 749.99
$ 150.00 to $ 299.99 $ 750.00 to $ 899.99
$ 300.00 to $ 449.99 $ 900 00 to $ 1,499.99
$ 450.00 to $ 599.99 $ 1,500 or over
14. Would the availability of affordable housing in or near rural prison communities serve as an incentive for you to move there
to work? Yes. No.
15. If affordable housing were available in or near rural prison communities, would you prefer to:
Purchase a home?
Rent?
16. How many bedrooms do you require for your household?
I? 1 2 3 4 5 or more
17. What is the monthly mortgage or rent you would be willing to pay in order to relocate to a prison in a rural area?
0 to $ 149.99 $ 600.00 to $ 749.99
$ 150.00 to $ 299.99 $ 750.00 to $ 899.99
$ 300.00 to $ 449.99 $ 900 00 to $ 1,499.99
$ 450.00 to $ 599.99 $ 1,500 or over
18. What are your perceptionsiopinions of rural prisons, and the communities where they are housed? ( Check as many as apply
to you.)
Good place to raise a family
My spouse or another household member would be unable to find a job or would have difficulty finding work.
Schools are better in larger cities.
Cl Schools are better in rural communities
I? Prefer simplified lifestyle in rural communities
Not enough accommodat~ ons, c onveniences or culturalirecreational activities in small communities
19. Which of the following incentives would encourage you to move to an area near a rural prison community?
A promotion
Affordable and adequate houslng
Inexpensive and convenient transportation
Extra pay for living in a rural area
Better storc;/ shopping in or near the rural community
Would not move from where I live now
20. If you would like to explain an answer or to elaborate on any of the issues addressed in this survey, please enter your
comments here: I
PLEASE ALSO COMPLETE THE ATTACHED " QLTSTIONS ABOUT LOCATION OF HOUSING." I
QUESTIONS ABOUT LOCATION OF HOUSING
To complete this portion of the survey, assume that affordable housing will be available at each of the
listed prisons, which meets the criteria you specified on your " Affordable Housing Questionraire." Please
place a check mark for each of the rural- area prisons where you would consider working. For each prison
you select, also specify the cities, towns or rural areas where you would not mind living. Maps are
provided on the reverse page for your reference.
1. ASPC - Florence.
Florence
Coolidge
Casa Grande
D Eloy
Apache Junction
nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.)
3. ASPC - Winslow
Winslow
Joseph City
Holbrook
Snowflake
St. Johns
nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.)
5. ASPC - Safford
Safford
Willcox
Ft. Grant
Thatcher
Clifton
Morenci
nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.)
7. ASPC - Yuma
Yuma
Quartsite
Somerton
nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.)
9. ASPC - Apache ( Springerville)
SpringervillelEager
Ci McNary
Show Low
i? St. Johns
Snowflake
0 nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.)
2. ASPC - Eyman
Florence
Coolidge
Casa Grande
Eloy
Apache Junction
nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.)
Ci 4. ASPC - Douglas
Douglas
Bisbee
Sierra Vista
0 Willcox
Tombstone
Huachaca City
nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.)
6. ASPC - Ft. Grant
Ft. Grant
Willcox
Safford
Thatcher
Clifton
Morenci
nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.)
8. ASP - Globe
Globe
Miami
Superior
Claypool
Kearny, Hayden, Winkleman
nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.)
10. ASPC - Buckeye ( proposed)
Buckeye
Gila Bend
AvondaleITolleson
nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.)
SURVEY RESULTS
As noted in the Introduction, all departmental institutions were represented in the survey.
The following tabulation summarizes for each prison complex: 1 ) the number of CSO series
positions filled, 2) the number of completed surveys returned to Central Office, and 3) the
number of surveys represented in the sample selected for analysis:
Table 1: Complex Where presently Employed
* Correctional Officer Training Academy.
** Includes 50 surveys returned and sampled from ASPC- Perryville- Yuma.
ASPC- Douglas
ASPC- Ey man
ASPC- Florence
ASPC- Perryville
ASPC- Phoenix
ASPC- Tucson
ASPC- Winslow
ASPC- Safford
ASP- Fort Grant
COTA +
TOTAL
As indicated, the survey was directed to all CSO series positions, not just CSOs. The
following indicates the number of surveys sampled for each position in the CSO series, as
well as the number for ccldets at the Correctional Officer Training Academy ( COTA) and
other locations:
COMPLEX RETURNED I SAMPLED
Table 2: Current CSO Series Position Filled
POSITIONS
435
979
881
559
236
861
41 7
151
115
266
4,900
213
733
669
375 * *
191
366
280
121
85
166
3,249
61
1 44
164
110**
70
106
6 1
49
50
50
915
% OF TOTAL
5.4%
35.6%
47.0%
7.9%
3.2%
0.7%
0.3%
100.0%
POSITION ( CSO Series)
Cadet
Correctional Service Officer I
Correctional Service Officer II
Sergeant
Lieutenant
Captain
Major
TOTAL
SURVEYS
49
326
430
72
29
6
3
915
While most of the cadets in the survey were physically at the COTA site, a few were at
other locations. In addition, the COTA figures reflect higher- level staff as well as cadets.
The following tables identify the counties, cities, towns, and rural counties where the
Officers reflected in the sample reside. As expected, a disproportionate share of Officers
live in metropolitan areas, in many cases considerably distant from the prisons where they
work.
Table 3: County of Residence
Table 4: CitvKown/ Rural Area of Residence
COUNTY OF RESIDENCE
Apache
Cochise
Coconino
Gila
Graham
Greenlee
Maricopa
Mohave
Navaho
Pima
Pinal
Yuma
TOTAL
11 Mesa
SURVEYS
7
78
7
7
73
2
351
1
47
163
128
51
91 5
CITY/ TOWN/ RURAL AREA
Tucson
Phoenix
% OF TOTAL
0.8%
8.5%
0.8%
0.8%
8.0%
0.2%
38.4%
0.1 %
5.1 %
17.8%
14.0%
5.6%
100.0%
SURVEYS
138
98
Florence
Safford
% OF TOTAL
15.1%
10.7%
Y uma
Winslow
Glendale
Apache Junction
Douglas
Casa Grande
Chandler
55
43
6.0%
4.7%
40
36
27
22
21
19
18
4.4%
3.9%
3.0%
2.4%
2.3%
2.1 %
2.0%
Table 4 ( Continued): City/ Town/ Rural Area of Residence
Of interest is the fact that Maricopa more than doubled Pima 2s a county of residence for
responding Officers ( 351 to 163), and yet the city of Tucson easily exceeded tCle city of
Phoenix as a city of residence ( 138 to 98). Mesa was the other major contributor of
Officers in the valley area besides Phoenix, with 86. The other major cities in the valley
were much further down the list: Glendale ( 271, Chandler ( 1 8), Peoria ( 1 3), Tempe ( 1 2),
Gilbert ( 6), and Scottsdale ( 4). Cities providing disproportionately large numbers of Officers
tended to coincide with c~ tiesh ousing state prisons, as expected: Florence ( 55), Safford
( 43), Yuma ( 40), Winslow ( 36), and Douglas ( 21).
CITY/ TOWN/ RURAL AREA
( Continued)
Coolidge
Sierra Vista
Peoria
Willcox
Fort Grant
Tempe
Bisbee
Avondale
Goodyear
Thatcher
Gilbert
Globe
Superior
Egar
Eloy
Flagstaff
Marana
Pima
Joseph City
Buckeye
Scottsdale
Other Communities
Rural Areas
- TOTAL
Obviously, the factor of driving distance is a major factor in Officers' level of satisfaction
with their present places of employment. In particular, the sample respondents reported
SURVEYS
17
16
13
13
12
12
9
8
8
8
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
47
94
91 5
% OF TOTAL
1.9%
1.7%
1.4%
1.4%
1.3%
1.3%
1 . O%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.7 %
0.7%
0.7% -
0.5 %
0.5%
0.5 %
0.5 %
0.5 %
0.5 %
0.4%
0.4%
5.1 %
10.3%
100.0%
the following driving distances to work:
Table 5: Driving Distances to Work
While almost half of the respondents ( 47.5%) live within 20 miles of work, a significant
proportion ( 30.3%) must drive at least 40 miles to work. Alarminalv. as manv as 1 in 16
~ orrectionaol fficers must drive at least 70 miles to aet to work. In and of itself, this result
is indicative of the need for more and better housing within proximity of state prisons!
DRIVING DISTANCES
0- 4.9 Miles
5- 9.9 Miles
10- 1 9.9 Miles
20- 29.9 Miles
30- 39.9 Miles
40- 49.9 Miles
50- 59.9 Miles
60- 69.9 Miles
70 Miles or More
TOTAL
Because Officers typically receive, at most, moderate salaries, and in many cases have
several dependents to support, anything which can reduce expenses, such as reduced
traveling distances to work and lower- cost housing, would likely provide much needed
assistance.
As indicated by the following table, the survey shows that just 119 or 13.0% of
respondents live alone. In fact, almost half ( 49.7%) have three or more individuals residing
with them, typically a spouse and two or more children.
SURVEYS
90
113
232
126
77
82
79
57
59
91 5
Table 6: Number of Peo~ leR esidina with You
% OF TOTAL
9.8%
12.3%
25.4%
13.8%
8.4%
9.0%
8.6%
6.2%
6.4%
100.0%
- -- - --- -
TOTAL 91 5 1 00 . O O/ o
PEOPLE RESIDING WITH YOU
None - Live Alone
1- 2
3- 5
6 or More
To assist in assessing housing needs, respondents were asked to indicate the range of their
current total household income. The results are as follows:
SURVEYS
119
341
41 3
42
% OF TOTAL
13.0%
37.3%
45.1 %
4.6%
Table 7: Total Household Income
While it is clear that many Officer households have a second source of income, we still find
that over 40% have total incomes of less than $ 25,000, which is another indicator of the
need for affordable housing.
TOTAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME
$ 1 9,000 - $ 24,999
$ 25,000 - $ 49,999
$ 50,000 - $ 69,999
$ 70,000 - $ 99,999
TOTAL
One of the important factors in assessing housing needs concerns the current or desired
type of housing -- home, rental property, or other arrangement. According to the following,
there is almost an even split ( 50.6% to 47.0%) between Officers who own or are
purchasing a home and those who rent.
SURVEYS
373
432
84
26
91 5
Townhouse I 16 I 1.7%
% OF TOTAL
40.8%
47.2%
9.2%
2.8%
100.0%
Table 8: Current Housing Arrangement
HOUSING ARRANGEMENT
House
Townhouse I 31 I 3.4%
Mobile Home
TOTAL OWNIPURCHASING HOME
House
SURVEYS
344
% OF TOTAL
37.6%
103
463
147
Apartment
OTHER ARRANGEMENT I 22 I 2.4%
11.3%
50.6%
16.1%
Mobile Home
TOTAL RENTING
TOTAL I 91 5 I 100.0%
194
Respondents were also asked to indicate the current value of their home:
Table 9: Range of Currefit Home Value
21.3%
58
430
11 CURRENT HOME VALUE I SURVEYS 1 % OF TOTAL / I
6.3%
47.0%
Table 9 ( Continued): Ran- ~ eof Current Home Value
CURRENT HOME VALUE
( Continued) SURVEYS % OF TOTAL
$ 75,000 - $ 99,999 99 21.4%
$ 100,000 - $ 149,999 49 10.6%
$ 150,000 or Over 8 1.7%
11 TOTAL I 463 I 100.0% 11
I One hundred forty- six or 3 1.5 % of the 463 respondents owning or purchasing a home
indicated a home value of under $ 50,000, while just 57 or 12.3% indicated a home value
/ of $ 100,000 or over. The most typical range was $ 50,000-$ 74,999.
For those paying rent, the survey asked for the amount of the monthly payment.
I
I Table 10: Range of Current Monthly Rent
11 MONTHLY RENT I SURVEYS I % OF TOTAL 11
- --
$ 600.00 or Over 59 13.7%
TOTAL 430 100.0%
Ninety- nine or 23.0% of the 430 who rent are paying under $ 300.00 a month, while 59,
or 13.7%, pay $ 600.0 or more a month.
One of the indicators judged to be relevant to the willingness of Officers to relocate is the
proportion who have worked at complexes other than those at which they are presently
employed. The survey results show that almost one- third ( 303 or 33.1%) of the
respondents had indeed worked at another complex at some time in the past. In fact, 99
or 10.8% had worked at two or more other complexes in the past.
An additional telling question on the survey is the following: Would the availability of
affordable housing in or near rural prison communities serve as an incentive for you to
move there to work? The responses are as follows:
Table 11 : Affordable Housing an Incentive to Relocate
AFFORDABLE HOUSING WOULD BE INCENTIVE SURVEYS % OF TOTAL 1' Yes 566 61.9%
TOTAL 91 5 100.0%
Approximately three in five Officers responding to the survey indicated that the availability
of affordable housing would encourage them to relocate to a rural prison to work.
Because the above was considered the most important question on the survey, the results
were broken out according to current work location ( prison) and according to the Officer's
current position with the Department. The following two tables indicate the percentage of
Officers responding that affordable housing would provide an incentive to relocate to a rural
prison.
Table 12: Affordable Housing an Incentive by Current Prison Complex
11 PRISON COMPLEXILOCATION ( AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS AN INCENTIVE!
11 ASP - Ft. Grant
I
1) ASPC - Douglas I 67.8 % I1
ASPC - Safford
ASPC - Winslow
ASPC - Perryville - Yuma
70.2%
69.0%
I( ASPC - Perryville 1 56.7% II
- -
82.0%
81.2%
ASPC - Eyman
ASPC - Florence
I[ ASPC - Tucson 47.1 % II
58.5%
57.8%
[ ASPC - Phoenix 47.0% I1
As might be expected, Officers at the Phoenix and Tucson prisons were the least likely to
indicate that affordable housing would serve as an incentive to relocate to a rural prison.
Officers working at the smaller rural prisons indicated the most willingness to relocate.
Table 13: Affordable Housing an Incentive by Current CSO Series Position
Maior I 66.7%
CSO SERIES POSITION
Cadet
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS AN INCENTIVE
81.6%
As expected, CSO Its were more likely to view affordable housing as an incentive than
were officers in most higher- level positions.
Correctional Service Officer I
Captain
Sergeant
Correctional Service Officer II
Lieutenant
66.4% -
60.0%
57.4%
57.2%
56.0%
An accompanying question concerned the respondent's preference for either renting or
purchasing a home. If affordable housing were available in or near rural communities,
would you prefer to: Purchase a home? Rent?
Table 14: Affordable Housing Preference
11 HOUSING PREFERENCE I SURVEYS I % OF TOTAL 11
11 Purchase a Home I 567 I 62.0% 11
11 Rent I 348 I 38.0% 11
The clear majority of respondents indicated that, should affordable housing be made
available near a rural prison, they would wish to purchase a home there.
TOTAL
To accurately assess housing needs, information on the number of bedrooms required was
requested from the respondents. How many bedrooms do you require for your household?
Table 15: Affordable Housing Bedrooms Required
91 5 100.0% 1
As shown in the table, the vast majority of respondents ( 76.2%) indicated the need for at
least three bedrooms. Less than 1 in 20 respondents indicated the need for just one
bedroom.
BEDROOMS REQUIRED
One
Two
Three
Four
Five or More
TOTAL
The survey went on to question the respondents concerning the monthly payments they
would be willing to make should they relocate to a rural area. What is the monthly
mortgage or rent you would be willing to pay in order to relocate to a prison in a rural area?
Table 16: Affordable Housing MortgageIRent Willing to Pay
SURVEYS
42
176
472
20 1
24
91 5
% OF TOTAL
4.6%
19.2%
51.6%
22.0%
2.6%
100.0%
- - -
MORTGAGEIRENT WILLING TO PAY
$ 0.00 - $ 149.99
SURVEYS
86
% OF TOTAL
9.4%
Table 16 ( Continued): Affordable Housing MortgageIRent Willing to Pay
MORTGAGEIRENT WILLING TO PAY
( Continued) I SURVEYS I % OF TOTAL 11
In comparing the above results with previous findings concerning home values and rental
amounts, it becomes apparent that the respondents would require on average a lower
monthly payment for housing than they are making at the present time in order to relocate.
This is to be expected.
-
$ 600.00 - $ 749.99
$ 750.00 - $ 899.99
$ 900.00 or More
TOTAL
To gain a better understanding of how Officers feel about relocating to a rural prison, the
survey posed the following question. What are yourperceptions/ opinions of ruralprisons,
and the communities where they are housed? The following table indicates the number of
respondents checking each individual item. It should be noted that just because an Officer
did not check an item, it does not mean that helshe disagreed with it.
Table 17: Perce~ tions/ O~ inionosf Rural Prison Communities
-
71
13
4
91 5
7.8%
1.4%
0.4%
100.0%
PERCEPTION/ OPINION
Not enough accommodations, conveniences or
cultural/ receational activities in a r u r ~ l
prison community.
Prefer simplified lifestyle in rural
communities.
Good place to raise a family.
My spouse or another household member would
be unable to find a job or would have
difficulty finding work.
Schools are better in rural communities.
The most frequent perception was the last listed, namely that rural communities do not
provide enough accommodations, conveniences or culturalIrecreationaI activities. Higher
number of respondents also indicated that they preferred the simplified lifestyle in rural
communities and that such places provided a good place to raise a family. A larger number
of respondents indicated that they thought schools were better in rural communities than
in larger cities ( 28.3% to 13.7%), although this did not appear to be a major issue to most
r~ spondents.
SURVEYS
43 1
422
394
Schools are better in larger cities.
TOTAL
% OF TOTAL
47.1 %
46.1 %
43.1 %
328
259 28.3% 1
125
91 5
13.7%
100.0%
Concerning the issue of motivation, the survey posed the following question. Which of the I following incentives would encourage you to move to a rural prison community?
Table 18: Incentives to Relocate to Rural Prison Communitv
INCENTIVES TO RELOCATE
Extra pay for living in a rural area.
A promotion.
Affordable and adequate housing.
Better stores/ shopping in or near the
rural community.
Inexpensive and convenient transportation.
Would not move from where I live now.
As indicated, more than half ( 55.8%) of the respondent ; indicated that extra pay would
serve as an incentive to relocate. Lesser numbers indicated that a promotion ( 48.4%) or
the availability of affordable and adequate housing ( 41.5%) would serve as an incentive to
relocate.
SURVEYS
51 1
443
380
286
TOTAL
To provide more specific information concerning where Officers would be willing to
relocate, the following questions were posed concerning location of housing. TO complete
this portion of the survey, assume that affordable housing will be available at each of the
listed prisons, which meets the criteria you specified on your " Affordable Housing
Questionnaire." Please place a check mark for each of the rural- area prisons where you
would consider working. For each prison you select, also specify the cities, towns or rural
areas where you would not mind living. Maps are provided on the reverse page for your
reference.
% OF TOTAL
55.8%
48.4%
41.5%
31.3%
264
224
The following table itemizes the number and percentage of respondents who indicated an
interest in relocating to any of 10 listed prison sites. ASPC- Phoenix, ASPC- Tucson, and
ASPC- Perryvilie ( except Yuma) were excluded from this portion of the survey.
28.9%
24.5%
91 5 100.0%
Table 19: Prison Complexes Might Consider Relocating To
ASPC - Safford
ASPC - Buckeye ( Proposed)
% OF TOTAL
43.5%
37.8%
31.1 %
MIGHT CONSIDER RELOCATING TO
ASPC - Florence
ASPC - Eyman
ASPC - Winslow - Apache ( Springerville)
ASPC - Douglas
SURVEYS
398
346
285
255
253
27.9%
27.7%
229 25.0% I
The largest numbers of respondents indicated an interest in relocating to either the Florence
( 43.5%) or the Eyman ( 37.8%) complexes. The least numbers of respondents indicated
an interest in relocating to either the Yuma or Globe prisons. Just 120 or 13.1 % of the
respondents indicated no interest whatsoever in relocating to any of the above prison sites.
Table 19 ( Continued): Prison Complexes Might Consider Relocating To
The following table lists the individual cities, towns, and rr al areas to which the largest
numbers of respondents indicated an interest in relocating.
MIGHT CONSIDER RELOCATING TO
( Continued)
ASPC - Ft. Grant
ASPC - Phoenix - Globe
ASPC - Perryville - Yuma
TOTAL
SURVEYS
21 2
198
195
91 5
Table 20: Cities/ Towns/ Rural Areas Might Consider Relocating To
% OF TOTAL
23.2%
21.6%
21.3%
100.0%
CITYTTOWNIRURAL AREA MIGHT RELOCATE TO
Safford
Florence
SpringervilleIEagar
Yuma
Apache Junction
Buckeye
Casa Grande
Globe
Ft. Grant
Winslow
Show Low
i
Coolidge
AvondaleTTolleson
Douglas
Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Florence)
Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Buckeye- Proposed)
Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Winslow- Apache)
SURVEYS
213
193
192
172
150
145
1 44
1 44
1 40
135
120
114
113
% OF TOTAL
23.3 %
21.1 Oh
21 . O%
18.8%
16.4%
15.8%
15.7%
15.7%
15.3%
14.8%
13.1 %
12.5%
12.3% I
131
101
100
97
Snowflake
Sierra Vista
St. Johns
11 . O%
11 . O%
10.9%
10.6%
94
91
88
10.3%
9.9 %
9.6%
Willcox I 84 1 9.2%
Table 20 ( Continued): Cities/ Towns/ Rural Areas Might Consider Relocating To
--
i Thatcher
% OF TOTAL
CITYTTOWNIRURAL AREA MIGHT RELOCATE TO
I ( Continued)
Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Eyman) I 80
SURVEYS
8.7%
Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Winslowl
-
Miami ' Bisbee
McNary I 42 I 4.6%
78
75
Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Douglas)
Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Safford)
Holbrook
Superior
Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASP- Ft. Grant)
Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Phoenix- Globe)
Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Perryville- Yuma)
Gila Bend
Jose~ hC itv
8.5%
8.2%
Tombstone 30 1 3.3%
59
59
58
55
55
53
50
50
6.4%
6.4%
6.3%
6.0%
6.0%
5.8%
5.5%
5.5%
Somerton I 27 1 3.0%
Claypool 29
1 E l o ~
Clifton
Huachuca Citv
3.2%
KearnylHaydenIWinkelman
Quartsite
Morenci
24
22
21
2.6%
2.4%
2.3%
15
14
13
1.6%
1.5%
1.4%
Finally, the respondents were provided with the opportunity to record any comments they
might have with regard to the issues addressed in the survey. Those comments are as
follows:
Number of
Resoonses Trans~ ortation
9 Commuting to rural areas a problem; need to live closer to work or be
compensated.
2 Need bike pathstbus route to work.
1 Travel between towns dangerous in winter.
1 Commuting time too long.
1 Like long commute to unwind.
Schools
4 Schools need to compete with urban schools.
1 Like residential area due to schools.
Child Care
1 Child care needs to be provided.
Medical
2 Adequate, affordable medical care needs to be provided.
3 Need to be near military or regular doctorlhospital.
3 Need better health care/ insurance, including HMO- type medical insurance in
rural area.
PavlFinancial Concerns
20 Low paylfinancial concerns are the issue, not housinglinadequate staff.
1 Low paylinadequate number of staff.
Housina/ Locational Issue
1 Inequity among prisons in regard to rental costs.
7 Prisons in undesirable locations; houses run down; don't like neighbors; lower
standard of living.
2 Housing problems due to overexpansion, building where work force not
available.
1 Already live in rural area.
2 Rural areas are safer and more secure compared to cities.
1 Would purchase home in some locations but rent in others.
4 Housing in this area too expensive.
1 Inexpensive rent only incentive to live in a rural community.
Likes current home/ location.
Would require attractive hometneighborhood to move.
Would not move from urban area to small town.
Home most important factor to family.
Survey does not consider cost of upkeep, other home costs.
Wants help from state in acquiring land near prison ( Ft. Grant).
Need house for family and horses.
Want to be closer to a prison; would like if quality of housing and
neighborhood good.
Transferring to rural prison, but family having to stay in home in urban area.
There is no incentive to move near a prison.
Like rural lifestyle; want to stay in rural area.
Would not live in housing on or near prison grounds; especially if inmates used
as labor; like to get away from work; hard since you can't associate with
inmate families who live near prisons; access to staff too easy.
Like to have staff housing or housing project in rural area.
Don't like staff housing due to rules.
Would like larger place for kids to visit.
Want to transfer to urban area.
Should use inmate labor to build housing for staff.
Retirement
20- year retirement better than other incentives.
Too near retirement to move.
ADC transfer policy restrictive.
Live with parents and don't pay rent.
Health hazards in rural areas, such as crop dusting.
Moving expenses an issue.
Other
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
RESEARCH STAFF
MEMO
Joni L. Hoffman, Senate Legislative Research Analyst
Kathi Knox, House Majority Research Analyst
TO: MEMBERS OF THE AD HOC JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS
DATE: December 18,1995
Re: Responses from Cities
As you know, the Cochairs of this Committee sent a letter to six cities soliciting
their input regarding options put forth at the last Committee meeting by Steve Capobres
from the Department of Commerce ( see attached " Alternatives for Legislative Action").
The cities to which the letters were sent were Winslow, Douglas, Buckeye, Florence,
Safford and Yuma. The letter was mailed December 1 and we asked the cities to
respond by December 15 so that Committee members could review the material prior to
the December 21 meeting. We also enlisted the help of the League of Cities and
Towns staff to follow up with those cities contacted to encourage them to respond in a
timely manner.
Attached is a copy of the letter we sent to the cities and the responses we have
received.
JLH: KK: jcs
Attachments
OVERVIEW OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
BUCKEYE
( G) TARGET CURRENT STATE RESOURCES
( H) GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS
YUMA
( G) TARGET CURRENT STATE RESOURCES
( C) STATE EQUITY FUND
( F) INCREASE STATE HOUSING TRUST FUND
DOUGLAS
( A) STATE LINKED DEPOSIT PROGRAM
( F) INCREASE STATE HOUSING TRUST FUND
( B) & ( C) STATE INCOME TAX CREDITS
STATE EQUITY FUND
( H) GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS
WINSLOW
( A) STATE LINKED DEPOSIT PROGRAM
( B) STATE INCOME TAX CREDITS
( C) STATE EQUITY FUND
( E) STATE LAND
SAFFORD
( E) STATE LAND
( A) STATE LINKED DEPOSIT PROGRAM
( F) INCREASE STATE HOUSING TRUST FUND
( H) GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS
FLORENCE
( B) STATE INCOME TAX CREDITS
( E) STATE LAND
( F) INCREASE STATE HOUSING TRUST FUND
( G) TARGET CURRENT STATE RESOURCES
Town of B u c keye
December 15,1995
Ms. Joni L. Hoffman
Legislative Research Analyst
Arizona State Senate
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Dear Ms. Hoffman:
This is in response to the request from the Legislative Committee on Affordable
Housing for Coriectional Services Officers,
The Town of Buckeye is presently very active in the Home and CDBG programs.
We intend to continue with our utilization of these two programs as long as the
funds a n available.
The use of General Fund Appropriations to use as leverage far private financing
toward privately constmcted and operated housing in the prison cities is something
we would also suppol- t.
We support the continuation of the tax- exempt status of bonds to be used for
housing. It would be especially helpful to see a personal income tax credit for first-time
homebuyers.
Of all of the above, the use of General Fund Appropriations would provide the
ability to move more quickly toward affordable housing development in whatever
area it might be need. e- d. The use of these funds would cut through various levels of red- tape as well.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our thoughts relative to the above
alternatives for legislative action toward providing housing for Correctional Services
0 fiicers.
anager
':" 4c
100 Nonh Apache P. C. E: Y 157 Buckeye, Arizona 85326 ( 602) 386- 4691 FAX ( 602) 386- 7332
J e THE CITY OF DOUGLAS
425 TEIITH STREm, DOUGLAS, ARIZONA 85607 TELEPHONE i52Cj364- 750 7
I FAX / 520) 364- 750 7
d
Michael J. P- E
City Manager
Senator Patricia Noland, Co- Chair
Rqmsentativt Tom Smith, Co- Chair
I Afbdable Houing Committee
Axkmna S t3te Legislature
87a0 West Washington
I Phcnix, Arizona 85007
Re Your letter dated November 30, 1995/ Affordable Housing for Correctional Service -
Omcers
Dcar Senator Nolanc! and
% presentative Smith
IEncbscd, please hxd a brief summary of the four alternatives we believe wcuid assist the
I developers and rht= City of Douglas in providing affordable housing for Correctional Service
CMlicers. The City of Douglas is committed to this endeavor and if you have sny question.
m either the attached information or the previous data fonvarded ur? det separate cover,
pkase feel bee to contact me immediately.
We appreciate the State Legislature's interest in this problem and look forward to a I resolution which will benefit everyone.
n
I City Manager
I oc= Mayor and Council
Greg Lucero, Deputy City Manager
Jarrie Tent, Housing Director
m0: cg
I ~ o~ al- a th; e ymier soathwtstm bnrdtr comrnunft; vl/
W~ thout additional Annexation, there are approximately thirty ( 30) to fifty ( 50) lots of
varying sizes within the corporate limb of the City of Douglas. Land prices appear
to be increasicg. Depending on the size of the lot and its location, the price ranges
from $ 6,000.00 to $ 16,000.00.
The shortage of affcrdable housing in Douglas may sttm from the lack of grouped
developed lots which have the necessary infrastructure available to construct homes
in the $ 55,000.00 to $ 65,000.00 range. A group of local investors is currently
developing land ( water, sewer, curb & gutter, and strest paving) in Douglas. The
houses will be approximately 1,150 Sq. Ft., wood frame with stucco and sell at a
price of $ 89,900.
Families with an annual income of $ 24,000 could handle a $ 59,000 mortgage but
would not have $ 10,900 for a down payment for one of these $ 69,900 homes.
The following altarnatives could serve t~ assist CSO's in the- acquisition of a home:
State Linked De~ osiPt roararq
Preference to lending institutions with a good track record f ~ mra king
resources available to individuals and investors for affordable housing
would be of benefi to the entire community.
Increase State Housinrr Trust Fund 1HTFl
Communities receiving HTF monies use it for construction,
administration, demolition and other project soft ccsts, depending on the
project. The lack of restriction on use and the minimal red tape
connected to the HTF provides flexibility in designing an affordable
housing project. An increase in the availability of HTF monies would
enhance development of both affordable rental housing and t5e
construction of new or rehabilitation of existing vacant houses.
State Incog$ Tax Credits and Stab Eauitv Fund
Once educated private investors and nonprofit organizations in the City
of Douglas area would find both the State Income Tax Credit and State
Housing Equity Fund ideas attractive incentives for developing
affordable rental housing or single family homes for purchase.
Ql General Fund A~~ m~ tiationr
* A general fund appropriation with few restrictions on its use would be
helpful in the City of Douglas to provide leverage to both ncnprofit and
private investors.
A general fund appropriation could also be used for the start up of a
program similar to the State Equity Fund.
r Town of FLORENCE I
December 18, 1995
Senator Patricia Nolmd, Co- Chair
Representative Tom Smith, Co- Chair
Joint Legislative Committee on Affordable Housing
for Correctional Services Officers
Arizona State Lrgislaturc
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix. Arizona 85007
I Honorable Senator Noland and Representative Smith:
I would like to t h e this opportunity to thank you for forwarding the copy of the survey dolls bp
the Deyt. Of Cor- rections concerning the housing needs of employees of the Dzpartmznt. It will
be of great assistanw in our discussions with developers \ ve are aaempting to interest in our
community.
I With regard to the options presented by Steve Capobres, Dept. Of Carninerce. whicl~ m ay be of
assistance in creating affordable housing or in attracting developers to construcr same, 11 is my
belief that the following four alternatives would prove to be of most value in our con~ niullity:
I. 4 State Income Tzx Credits for affordable housing built in " prison citics."
I J IJst. of Stnte Lmd - there is a sizeable inventory of State Land in rht. Florerlcz area
in addit~ onto the State land already designated for prisan use.
I + Increase in the State Housirlg Trust Fund targeted for use in thc " prison Cities."
9' Targeting Current Srate Resources by providing bonus points for projects located
in " prison cities." In addition to the funding resources listed in Mr. Capobres
paper. I nrould add technical assistance from the Dept. Of Commerce staff. Snlall
commwiities. such as Florence, need all the assistancc and expertise available, in
assistins and working uith developers to " package" all the possible resources,
thereby ending up with a truly affordable project.
As far as vacant lPmd available for the development of affordable housing, the Town iiself, does
not oun lat- td that would be suirable for this purpose. We have, howe\- er, just colnpleted annexing
approximately 200 acres which is being targeted for housing devcloprncnt and are currently
box l@$ J, P
h developers wA o qre interested hi 3bu2ild in$ r T2 eT6 d2I ) h& %!%) nlitrrle~ lta nd orence, rlzona -
Affordable Housing
Page 2
is moving ahead, to provide the infrastructure to make this area " ripe" for development and nil1
be working closely with rhc Dept. Of Commerce staff to steer this de\ relopment in the right
direction.
In addition to the annexation area mentioned above, there is undeveloped, privately owned land
outside of thc Town whicll could be utilized for housing development. The biggest obstacles to
developnient of these areas are the asking price for the land itself as well as the cost of extending
utilities to serve it. These two factors alone would almost preclude the development crf
'. affordable" housing unless other " cost savings" factors couid be brought to bear.
I hope this il~ fonnationw ill be of use to the Committee and should there be an). additional
information I can provide, please do riot hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Interim Town Manager
THE CITY O F SAFFORD
December 14, 1995
.- \
' rdir jason K. , Dezozo, Research .4ssistznt
Arizona StateBenate
Capitol Complex, Senate Building
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Dear Mr. Dezozo:
You asked us to provide you with certain information pertaining to statistics related to the City of
SafTord. Specifically, you asked for housing information and information concerning inmate labor.
Several Charts are inclosed that give you the information requested. Please let me know if you have
any questions concerning this information.
Sincerely,
THE CITY OF SAFFORD
M &< - C \ u Ronald J lacobson
/ gl
Enclosures ( 6)
I P. O. BOX 272 SAFFORD, ARIZONA 85548 FAX ( 520) 348- 31 11
BASIC COUNTS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING
Special Census of Graham County, Arizona
Census Date: March 18, 1995
Persons
Total
Housing
Graham County
Pima Town
SaRord City
Thatcher City
Total
9,950
672
3,486
1,328
29,772
1,850
8,773
3,957
Occupied
8,98 1
619
3,179
1,237
Vacant
969
5 3
289
9 1
Rate
9.73
7.89
8.33
6.85
December 14, 1995
Joni L. Hoffman, Legislative Research Analyst l Arizona State Senate
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Dear Ms. Hoffman:
I AfTordable Housing for Correctional Services Officers
I Senator Noland and Representative Smith asked for comments concerning alternatives that might be
considered to address the issue of affordable housing for Correctional Services Officers. Ten
alternatives were submitted and our preference for the four best options as far as our community is
concerned follow.
Please consider the four best options, in order of preference, to be:
1. Alternative E -- State Land
Alternative A -- State Linked Deposit Program.
rUten2tive F -- Increase State Housing Trust Fund
Alternative H -- General Fund Appropriations.
I Making state land available for affordable housing has the potential for providing several benefits.
First, in most rural communities, conversion of state land to affordable housing property would be
the highest and best use of the land and consequently comply with existing. constitutional B requirements Additionally, if this land were sold to developers for this purpose, the land would be
convened to private ownership and thus provide revenue to the rural areas through property taxes
I to assist in infrastructure development
Alternative A keeps the financing for affordable housing in the private sector. It provides incentives
B for financial institutions to make resources available for affordable housing. Developers would then
have incentive to construct the needed housing.
P. O. Box 272 I SAFFORD, ARIZONA 85548 FAX ( 520) 348- 31 11
AKordable Housing
Page 2 of 2
Increasing the percentage of unclaimed property that is transferred to the State Housing Trust Fund
would increase the resources available for additional housing. This fbnd is already fbnctional and
operating so no new organizational structure would be required. I
The least preferable alternative of the four options we recommend is general fbnd appropriations.
This alternative has the disadvantage of being subject to the whims of the Legislature each year. It
has the advantage of having the Legislature as a player in assisting in the providing of affordable
housing to employees of the State. We believe that this alternative should be restricted to using the
. I
appropriations as guarantees to leverage other private financing for the purpose of obtaining
affordable housing in the prison cities. u
There is an ample supply of state land near the City of Saf5ord that is really being used for no obvious
purpose at the present time. Private lands are available within the City that would be available under
the right circumstances and with negotiation with land owners.
I
Please let me know if we can be of fbrther assistance. I
Sincerely,
City Manager / (
. Mayor
James L. Boles
21 Williamson Avenue
Winslow, Arizona 86047
( 602) 289- 2422
Fax: ( 602) 289- 3742
TDD: ( 602) 289- 4982
Council Members
Curtis Hardy Teny Nagle
Dolores Rodriguez
Arnold Scott
Daniel Simmons
T. E. Thompson
December 13,1995
Jason Bezozo
Arizona State Senate
Capitol Complex, Senate Building
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Dear Mr. Bezozo:
In response to your request for infarmation, the City of Winslow would support the following
options:
A) State Linked Deposit Program
B) State Income Tax Credits
C) State Equity Fund
D) State Land
2. Housing Availability:
3 Single Family Homes for sale
1 single Family Home for Rent
2 Mobile Homes for Rent
5 Apartments for Rent ( substandard and depressing)
Housing Costs: ( average monthly costs)
Owner Occupied with Outstanding Mortgage $ 552.
Owner Occupied without Mortgage $ 166.
Renter Occupied $ 331.
General Housing Data:
Total Housing Units = 3,109
Average # of persons per household = 3.36
Units built prior to 1939 = 25%
3. Inmate Labor
Projects include weed and trash removal and irrigation ditch repair.
Approximate value to City annually = $ 32,000.
Approximate cost in broken equipment = $ 5,000.
4. The City of Winslow owns property that would be suitable for affordable housing, and
there is considerable acreage that is undeveloped and zoned for housing held by private
owners.
However, as you can see by the housing costs, affordability is not the concern in Winslow.
Our issue is availability. Even high end housing would improve the situation by Ereeing up
more affordable housing currently being occupied by higher income families. The one
subsidized development that was built in Winslow is a barren, desolate eyesore and we
have no interest in developing anymore of that type housing.
In fact, low housing costs is the reason given by many developers for not wanting to
develop in Wislow. Unfortunately, none of these surveys takes the quality of the housing
into consideration. If we condemned the number of dwelling units that are substandard
and should be condemned, our citizens would be living in the streets. The catch 22 for us
is that the low cost of these units skews the market data to the extent that this is not
perceived as a profitable market.
If you have any questions regarding this information, please feel free to contact me at
( 520) 289- 341 1 ext. 227.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Meyer
~ ommunity~~ evelo~ rMnaennatg er
cc: 6on McDaniel, City Administrator
INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CITY OF YUMA
Tlus information was provided on December 14 by telephone call from Ms. Marty
McCune from the City of Yuma. Ms McCune is the Neighborhood Specialist.
Ms. McCune indicated that Yuma does not have a problem with available affordable
housing. If pressed to choose from the listing of options, Yuma believes that C) State Equity
Fund and F) Increase State Housing Trust Fund are the best options for - Yuma.
YUMA CONSOLIDATED PLAN FOR 1995
CITIZEN'S SUMMARY
Action Plan
CDBG fhds in the amount of $ 1,057,000 are programmed for a variety of housing and community
development activities including expansion of the senior center, renovation of a downtown hotel for
affordable housing, public services, downtown streetscape improvements, downtown plan, and mixed
use comdor study. HOME hnds are not received on an entitlement basis, but must be applied for
through the state. Funds for Tenant Based Rental Assistance have been received for four
years.
Citizen Participation
The City's citizen participation process began with development and adoption of a new Citizen
Participation Plan in January. Also in January, public hearings were held in locations other than City
Hall for the first time. In February, a meeting was held with social service agencies to discuss service
coordination and identi@ gaps. The group has continued to meet on a regular basis to discuss the
service c h a t e in the community. In April, the draft Consolidated Plan was made available for public
review, two public hearings were held, City staff met with the Housing Authority Resident Council
to discuss plan elements, and another meeting was held with social service agencies. May saw
consideration by City Council of proposed CDBG activities, and final adoption of the Plan.
COMMUNITY PROFILE
The City of Yuma, Arizona is located in the far southwest comer of the state on the banks
of the Colorado River. The river forms the border between Arizona and California, and Yuma is also
close to two states in Mexico - Baja California about 10 miles to the west and Sonora about twenty
miles to the south. Yuma has historically been a city to go through on the way to somewhere else --
being half way between Phoenix and San Diego and half way between Los Angeles and Tucson.
Yuma was the lower fording point on the Colorado River and thus every major movement which
contributed to the development of the American west went through Yuma and left its mark on the
history of the area.
The major c~ ntnbutortso the economy of the area are agriculture, tourism and government.
Tourism brings more than 50,000 winter residents from northern states and Canada to Yuma each
year which impacts both services in the community generally and the housing market. The majority
of the winter visitors stay in RV parks outside the City limits, however a number rent apartments each
year making the rental market extremely tight during the winter months. Agriculture also contributes
Yuma consolidated Plan Summary
Page 2
to the tight rental market as lettuce and citrus harvest seasons bring many farmworkers to the area
from September to April.
The total population of the City of Yuma grew from 42,433 in 1980 to 54,923 in 1990 -- a
29% increase in population. The number of households grew even more - by 37% from 14,045 in
1980 tb 19,282 in 1990. The 1995 Special Census showed a population of 60,457, with 24,857
households.
There was a shift in proportions of ethnic and racial groups between 1980 and 1990. The
proportion of whites in the population fell from 67% of total population in 1980 to just over 58% in
1990. Proportions of all minorities rose, with the largest increase being in the proportion of Hispanics
going from 27% in 1980 to 35.6% in 1990.
Yuma County includes a relatively large number of migrant and seasonal farmworkers.
Approximately 2,400 farmworkers work and reside in Yuma County . Assuming an average family
size of 4.5 persons per household, a minimum population of 10,800 persons comprise farmworker
families permanently living within Yuma County. ( This figure would increase to 12,800 to 13,100
when migrant fmworkers permanently residing elsewhere in the State or Southwest U. S. are
factored into the equation.)
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
Conditions
Yuma is experiencing rapid growth, with the metropolitan area being the fourth fastest growing
metropolitan area in the country. The seasonal nature of the economy from both agriculture and
tourism, and stubborn double- digit unemployment, remain issues in providing affordable housing.
There have been a number of major commercial projects in the last several years including Target,
Dillards, Toys R Us, Super K Mart, however most of these businesses provide jobs minimum wages
and seasonal employment. Several new industrial projects are being developed to provide higher
paying year- round jobs.
Housing Needs
The discussion which follows uses the term " housing problems" extensively. " Housing Problems"
are defined as one or more of three items -- a) cost burden - paying more than 30% of income for
rent and utility costs; b) overcrowding, and c) substandard housing conditions. Data was provided
by KUD for households with housing problems.
Yuma Consolidated Plan Summary
Page 3
While 46% of renter households in the City of Yuma have housing problems of some sort, the
percentage jumps to nearly 80% for findies making less than 5 1% of MFI. For all minority headed
households, the chance is even higher with 87% and 81% of those in the income categories of 0- 30%
Median Family Income ( MFI), and 3 1- 50% MFI respectively having housing problems. For black
households the percentage is even higher, with 92% of those in the 0- 30% MFI category having
housing problems, and 100% of those in the 3 1%- 50% category having problems. Hispanics fare
better than blacks, with 86% of those in the 0- 30% MFI category having problems, and only 77% of
those in the 3 1- 50% category having housing problems.
Family type is another way to analyze the extent to which income level affects housing problems, with
78% of renter households below 5 1% of MFI having housing problems. Elderly families are the least
likely to suffer housing problems, and large families ( 5 or more persons) are the most likely to have
problems. All minority households suffer more than the general population from housing problems
when their incomes are less than 5 1% of MFI.
Only 24% of homeowners have housing problems when their incomes are less than 5 1% of MFI.
The percentage jumps to 72% for those with incomes under 30% MFI and 60% for those from 3 1-
50%. For minority owners, 78% of those with less than 30% MFI and 64% of those from 3 1- 50%
MFI have have housing problems. Family size is another indicator, with 100% of large families in
all categories having housing problems.
Housing Market Conditions
In 1990 U. S. Census, Yuma had approximately 10,784 detached housing units, 1,290 one- unit
attached structures, 6,004 multi- fdy units, and 4,611 mobile home, trailers, or other units. Mobile
homes represent a significant portion of the City's housing stock, as approximately 2,000 units are
situated on subdivided urban land, 68 on unsubdivided land, and 2,3 18 units situated in 134 mobile
home parks located throughout the City. There are approximately 5 18 mixed residential dwellings
with the City.
Vacancy rates for housing fluctuate significantly over time and are contingent on dynamic market
conditions. Because of the seasonal nature of Yuma's economy, vacancies are plentihl in the summer
and virtually nonexistent during the winter months.
Housing Affordability
+ For Yuma County, median family income rose by 71% between 1980 and 1990. Monthly
contract rent rose by 79% during the same period, resulting in a 4.8% erosion of rental
affordability. In December, 1994, MFI rose to $ 30,100, a 29% increase from 1990.
+ Homeownership affordability rose 7.6% during the same 10- year period, mdung it easier to
own a home.
Yuma Consolidated Plan Summary
Page 4
+ Only 15% of owner occupied dwellings surveyed were valued under $ 50,000. leading to the
conclusion that gains in affordability have likely benefitted moderate income households the
most.
+ In January, 1995, according to the Norton Report, the median closed price for a home was
$ 62,275, with a 4 bedroom house costing $ 1 15,000 which is well out of . the range of low-moderate
income people.
Housing Condition
About 17% of occupied owner units were substandard according to the 1990 Census, with 13% of
rental units also substandard. Based on information fkom the City of Yuma Housing Assistance Plan
in 1991, approximately 69% of occupied substandard owner and renter units were estimated to be
suitable for rehabilitation, with the balance not economically feasible to repair.
Overcrowding
According to the 1990 Census, 6% of owner- occupied dwellings and 16% of renter- occupied
dwellings were in an overcrowded condition ( more than 1.01 persondroom) in 1990.
Concentrations of Minorig and Low- Income Householdy
Generally speaking, the farther north a census tract is located, the greater the minority and low-income
concentrations. The greatest concentration of minority households - 64% - is located in
Census Tract 1, and the least concentration - 17% in Census Tract 10. The City's North End
Redevelopment Project Area is within Census Tract 1. The City considers any area which exceeds
50% low- income or minority to be an area of concentration and a location for special outreach
efforts.
Affordable Housing Needs
Rental .4ssistar1ce is needed because renters make up 61.5% of very low- income households and
55.3% of other low- income households, and more than 75% pay in excess of 30% of their income
for rent and utilities in the very low income category; Housing Authority waiting lists for rental
assistance and conventional public housing exceed 1,400 on EACH list; renter households with
" worst case" needs number more than 1,100; vacancy rates in existing rental housing are low,
especially in the winter.
New Concnuction can be justified because there is adequate vacant land available for the development
of new rental or owner occupied housing; There are approximately 722 households which have five
or more persons which are very low income or other low income; rental units having three or more
bedrooms are scarce and are generally not affordable to very low or low income renters; there is not
a supply of vacant and habitable public housing in excess of turnover units.
I Yuma Consolidated Plan Summary
Page 5
I Housing Rehabilitation is needed because substandard units make up 17% of the housing stock
which is owner occupied, with 86% of those units considered suitable for rehabilitation; high
unemployment affects an owner's ability to maintain his property and can lead to deterioration or loss
I of buildings. Rehabilitation of rental units is also needed.
Homebuyer Assistance is needed because mortgage fhds are plentill and rates are low, however m low income homebuyers have difficulty coming up with downpayment and closing costs.
Homeless Needs
According to a State- sponsored Yuma County Homeless Survey it is estimated that some 600
I homeless persons are in Yuma during the winter months. There are emergency shelter facilities for
the homeless in Yuma with Crossroads Mission being the largest with the ability to provide 70
emergency shelter beds for males; 40 emergency beds for women and children Unduplicated numbers 8 , showing shelter service use in 1994 were 2,300 individuals and 600 families. Approximately 200
people are turned away annually due to unavailable beds.
Other agencies which provide limited beds for specific user populations include Catholic Community
Services for victims of domestic violence, and Behavioral Health Services for seriously mentally ill
I persons. The Council of Governments operates a motel voucher program to provide limited
emergency assistance, as well as a rent and mortgage program to keep people from becoming
homeless.
I The City of Yuma surveyed the social services agencies regarding the needs of the homeless, and first
priority was given to homeless families. The primary identified need is support facilities and services,
I with rehabilitation of existing housing units coming in next in priority order.. There is reasonable
coordination among the providers of service to attempt to avoid duplication. The City has
participated with CDBG hnding for transitional housing for mentally ill homeless with Behavioral
I Health Services and with Safe House for victims of domestic violence Rental assistance is a
secondary need as the need for housing assistance is great for those who are homeless. The Housing
Authority has six Section 8 certificates desi- g nated for homeless households.
Public and Assisted Housing Needs
The City's Housing Authority manages 185 public housing units with another 50 under construction
on four sites. All units are in excellent condition. The Authority regularly applies for CIAP and
CDBG hnds to repair these units and sites.. I Housing Authority units are well managed, and no improvements are needed in management. There
I are a number of programs ongoing for public housing tenants including drug elimination, Family Self
Sufficiency Program, working to publicize the low- rent program and develop a network of
responsible Section 8 Landlords, and assessment of tenant's needs. Other activities include resident
Yuma Consolidated Plan Summary
Page 6
councils, tenant patrols, participation in the Boys and Girls club, gang awareness meetings, teenager
programs and teen dances.
Other units currently assisted by state or federal funds:
( a) Section 8 Units - 806
New Construction - 110 - Private
Mod Rehab - 9 - Private
Certificates and Vouchers - 687 ( Elderly - 76, Family 61 1) - HACY
( b) All privately- owned rental housing
Section 202 Elderly - 60 units
Low Income Housing Tax Credit - 144 Units
Farmers Home 5 16 - Farmworker Housing - 32 units